LOWER TO MID-CRETACEOUS SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY AND ...

Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2017, v. 87, 609–629

Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2017.33

LOWER TO MID-CRETACEOUS SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF CO2

STORAGE POTENTIAL IN THE MID-ATLANTIC U.S. COASTAL PLAIN

KENNETH G. MILLER,1,2,3 JAMES V. BROWNING,1 PETER J. SUGARMAN,1,4 DONALD H. MONTEVERDE,1,4 DAVID C. ANDREASEN,5

CHRISTOPHER LOMBARDI,1 JESSE THORNBURG,1 YING FAN,1,2,3AND ROBERT E. KOPP1,2,3

1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, U.S.A.2Institute of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A.

3Rutgers Energy Institute, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A.4New Jersey Geological and Water Survey, Trenton, New Jersey, U.S.A.

5Maryland Geological Survey, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: The Mid-Atlantic U.S. Coastal Plain (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and northern Virginia) containsthick (. 500 m) mid-Cretaceous sand–sandstone reservoirs confined by thick clay–shale confining units and thus hashigh potential for storage of CO2 captured from nearby point sources. The predictability of the continuity of thereservoir and confining units can be improved by applying principles of sequence stratigraphy, including integrationof lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, paleoenvironmental proxies, and a novel application of fluvial aggradation cycles(FACs). We evaluate the storage and confinement potential for the Lower Cretaceous Waste Gate Formation and mid-Cretaceous Potomac Formation/Group in New Jersey and Maryland, which we divide into three major reservoirs(Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I, Potomac Unit II, and Potomac Unit III). We use new core data to ground-truth well-logsand paleoenvironmental changes, sequence stratigraphic stacking patterns (including FACs), and pollenbiostratigraphy to update previous well-log correlations in New Jersey and extend these correlations into deepholes in Maryland. While individual sand beds are typically local in extent, zones of sands are broadly correlative overdistances of 60 km. These regionally traceable sand-prone zones should be useful for carbon storage. CenomanianPotomac Unit III sands are relatively thick (~ 70 m) in New Jersey, but generally thin (average of ~ 50 m) intoMaryland; they are near the updip limit for supercritical storage (800 m) in New Jersey and Maryland and may notbe suitable due to updip migration above the supercritical level. Potomac Unit II sands (Albian Pollen Zone II) appearto be discontinuous and less suitable in both states. Potomac Unit I (Aptian Pollen Zone I) and Waste Gate Formationsands (?early Aptian to Berriasian pre-Pollen Zone I) are relatively thick (~ 88–223 m and ~ 81–288 m, respectively)and confined in New Jersey and appear to be widespread and continuous; the updip confinement of this reservoir inMaryland is less certain. Volume storage estimates for the Potomac I-Waste Gate in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plainare 8.4–33.5 Gt CO2, adequate to store CO2 captured from 24–95 GW of natural gas generation for a century.

INTRODUCTION

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) in geologic reservoirs is an important

strategy for reducing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)

into the atmosphere (Metz et al. 2005; International Energy Agency 2014).

Capture of CO2 may be done pre- or post-combustion from power plants

(Metz et al. 2005) or with innovative technology through direct air capture

(Broecker 2013). Both capture of CO2 produced by combustion of biomass

and direct air capture provide mechanisms for achieving negative

emissions by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Such removal also

plays an important role in many emissions scenarios consistent with the

goal of limiting global mean warming to 1.5–2.08C above a pre-Industrial

baseline (Edmonds et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2016).

Geological carbon sequestration, or carbon storage, usually assumes

storage in a subsurface reservoir as a supercritical fluid, with initial

structural trapping transitioning to mineralization over centennial to

millennial time scales (Metz et al. 2005). Storage of supercritical CO2 in

structural traps requires both a reservoir and a seal/cap, with burial pressure

greater than 7.38 MPa at temperatures . 31.18C (Bachu 2000). Thus,

assuming a typical geothermal gradient of 258C/km, 128C surface

temperatures, and a lithostatic gradient of 27 MPa/km, supercritical

storage requires burial depths greater than 800 m (Bachu 2000), the line of

supercritical storage (Fig. 1). Large volume reservoirs are needed; these

can be in depleted oil and gas fields (where CO2 injection is often used in

enhanced oil recovery [EOR]) or in saline reservoirs. Saline reservoirs have

larger volumes than oil and gas reservoirs and are more widely distributed.

However, because fewer wells are drilled in areas lacking hydrocarbon

exploration, reservoirs and seals are not as well characterized geologically

there as in oil and gas fields. CO2 can be sequestered in saline reservoirs

either on land or in offshore geological formations, with porous limestones

or sandstones the preferred targets. Ideally, CO2 sources should be

proximal to injection sites, minimizing the cost and environmental impacts

of CO2 transport.

Published Online: June 2017Copyright ! 2017, SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 1527-1404/17/087-609/$03.00

The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain was identified in early studies as one of

several suitable targets in the U.S. for carbon storage, because it has

sufficiently deep, porous, and permeable sand–sandstone reservoirs that

are capped by confining beds that hydraulically isolate them from

overlying freshwater aquifers (Hovorka et al. 2000). Studies conducted

as part of the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

(MRCSP; http://www.mrcsp.org) provided preliminary evaluations of

carbon-storage opportunities in sand and sandstone reservoirs in the

New Jersey Coastal Plain (Sugarman et al. 2011) (Fig. 1) and its offshore

region (Monteverde et al. 2011).

In this study, we build on and extend the work from New Jersey and

place carbon storage into a regional geological context from New Jersey to

northern Virginia. We use new core data and sequence stratigraphy to

ground-truth gamma logs, update previous well-log and pollen correlations

in New Jersey for the Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I, Unit II, and Unit III, and

correlate New Jersey sections to four deep wells in Maryland using well-

logs and pollen biostratigraphy (Fig. 1). This allows us to define regional

reservoir units consisting of multiple permeable sand–sandstone layers and

low-permeability clay–shale confining layers that are potential seals. We

update the previous assessment of storage capacity in the Potomac

reservoirs and extend this approach to assess the entire Mid-Atlantic

Coastal Plain. We conclude that there is high storage resource potential for

storing large volumes (8.4–33.5 Gt CO2 in the Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I)

of CO2 in these porous (. 20%) saline reservoirs and conclude with a

discussion of the practical feasibility of carbon sequestration in the Mid-

Atlantic Coastal Plain.

Geological History of the Mid-Atlantic Margin

The Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain is the emergent portion of a classic

passive continental margin. The Coastal Plain lies between the Atlantic

Ocean and the Fall Line, which separates it from surficially exposed

bedrock (Fig. 1). It consists of largely unconsolidated sands, silts, and

clays, with occasional gravels, and dips gently (, 18) and thickens

seaward. The Coastal Plain formed following Late Triassic–earliest

Jurassic rifting (~ 230–198 Ma; Olsen and Kent 1999), followed by

extrusion of ?Early Jurassic seaward dipping basalts and post-rift uplift

associated with a diachronous unconformity (Grow and Sheridan 1988).

Seafloor spreading began prior to the Callovian (~ 165 Ma; Middle

Jurassic; Sheridan et al. 1978), with the likely opening beginning off

Georgia ca. 200 Ma and progressing northward off the mid-Atlantic margin

(Withjack et al. 1998).

Thick sediments (over 16 km) accumulated in the offshore Baltimore

Canyon Trough (BCT) basin and thinner (0–2.4 km) uppermost Jurassic to

FIG. 1.—Location map of Mid-Atlantic margin.

Thick white line is the Fall Line separating

bedrock from the coastal plain. Thick red line is

800 m line of supercritical storage. Thick red line

shows 800 m depth of supercritical storage.

K.G. MILLER ET AL.610 J S R

Holocene sediments accumulated in the onshore Coastal Plain in the

Salisbury Embayment (Fig. 1; Grow and Sheridan 1988). Subsidence

began offshore prior to 180 Ma and progressively moved onshore from the

Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous (ca. 150 to 125 Ma) as a thermoflexural

response due to increased crustal rigidity (Watts 1981; Olsson et al. 1988;

Kominz et al. 1998). Upper Jurassic strata (145.3–163.5 Ma) have been

identified in Maryland (Fig. 2; Hansen and Doyle 1982) and tentatively

extended into New Jersey based on well-log correlations (Fig. 2; Olsson et

al. 1988; this study). Accommodation (the creation of vertical space

needed for accumulation of sediments) in the coastal plain has been

dominated by sediment loading, thermoflexural subsidence, and compac-

tion (Kominz et al. 1998; Kominz et al. 2008), with little evidence for more

active tectonics or faulting other than growth faults (Sheridan et al. 1991).

Recent studies have shown that epeirogenic uplift and subsidence due to

changes in mantle dynamic topography have influenced the stratigraphic

record of this margin (Moucha et al. 2008; Muller et al. 2008; Spasojevic,

et al. 2008; Rowley et al. 2013), providing a mechanism for differential

movement of the arches (e.g., the South Jersey High; Fig. 1) and basins

(Salisbury and Raritan Embayments; Fig. 1) that characterize this margin

(Brown et al. 1972). Glacial isostatic adjustment due to the ice ages of the

past 2.7 Myr (e.g., Peltier 1998) also drives subsidence in the region, but its

net effect on the older record over multiple glacial cycles is small.

Sequence Stratigraphy and Carbon Sequestration

Sequence stratigraphy is an approach to the stratigraphic record that

potentially enables greater predictability of the presence and character of

reservoir sands and confining units (e.g., Posamentier et al. 1988).

Sequence stratigraphy divides the stratigraphic record into units bounded

by unconformities or their correlative conformities (sequence boundaries;

Mitchum et al. 1977). Sequences were first recognized based on seismic

criteria (Mitchum et al. 1977). Sequences can be readily identified in cores

by irregular contacts, rip-up clasts, other evidence of reworking, intense

bioturbation, major facies changes, stacking pattern changes (e.g., changes

in coarsening versus fining upward), and evidence for hiatuses (Van

Wagoner et al. 1987; Miller et al. 2013). Sequences can also be recognized

on geophysical logs by distinct stacking patterns, particularly of para-

sequences (those bounded by flooding surfaces (FS); Van Wagoner et al.

1987; Van Wagoner et al. 1990), and by the common association of

sequence boundaries with large (usually sharp) gamma-log increases,

though these are not unique to unconformities. Sequence stratigraphy has

long provided predictions about petroleum reservoirs and seals (Vail et al.

1977) and can be applied to aquifer and confining-unit distributions (e.g.,

Sugarman et al. 2005a) and carbon storage (this study). Onshore coring in

New Jersey and Delaware by Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Legs 150X

and 174AX (Miller and Snyder 1997; Miller 2002) provided numerous

examples of the application of sequence stratigraphy to Upper Cretaceous

to Holocene marine and nonmarine strata (e.g., Sugarman et al. 2005;

Thornburg 2016) and their relevance to sea-level change (Miller et al.

2005).

Recent studies of the New Jersey and Delaware coastal plains have

demonstrated the utility of sequence stratigraphy for understanding the

distribution of aquifers and confining beds/caps/seals (Sugarman et al.

2005a; Thornburg 2016). Initial hydrostratigraphic investigations in the

New Jersey Coastal Plain delineated aquifers and confining units chiefly

from outcrops and subsurface geophysical logs (Zapecza 1989). Sugarman

et al. (1995, 2005a) applied sequence stratigraphy to ODP Leg 150X and

174AX cores to improve hydrogeologic frameworks and predictions for

continuity of aquifer sands and confining unit muds. They identified

sequence boundaries in cores and correlated them regionally using

geophysical logs. Facies changes in marine sequences generally follow

predictable patterns, with upper highstand system tract (HST) aquifer sands

confined by transgressive system tract (TST) silts and clays of the

overlying sequence. They showed marine aquifer sands were generally

continuous on the 10þkm scale and traceable for . 60 km along strike and

. 25 km along dip. Confining beds for these units are typically laterally

continuous shelf or prodelta silts and clays. Marginal to nonmarine

sequences were less predictable, though some show surprising lateral

continuity along strike (. 60 km; Sugarman et al. 2005a).

Preliminary characterization of geologic carbon-storage potential in

New Jersey found that saline reservoirs in the coastal plain warranted

further investigation (Sugarman et al. 2011). These saline reservoirs are

attractive for storage because their high total dissolved solids (TDS)

precludes their use as a source for human consumption or agriculture

(since the term ‘‘aquifer’’ in some definitions implies such use, we use the

more generic term ‘‘reservoir’’). Evaluating the New Jersey Coastal Plain,

Sugarman et al. (2011) eliminated the Cenozoic and the Campanian

Mount Laurel and Englishtown reservoirs as too shallow for storage

potential (, 800 m) and evaluated Cretaceous reservoirs of the Potomac–

Raritan–Magothy Formation (‘‘PRM’’) (Zapecza 1989). They constructed

structural contour and isopach maps of the PRM reservoirs and

concluded that only Potomac Formation reservoirs (named Units I, II,

and III as described below) were suitable based on depth, thicknesses,

and presence of suitable confining units. Here, we build on the well-log

correlations of Sugarman et al. (2011), testing and improving them with

new core data and sequence stratigraphic interpretations, and extending

these correlations to Maryland.

FIG. 2.—Cross section shown in Figure 1 showing the Potomac Formation and Group (dark green) and Waste Gate Formation (light green). Thick red line shows 800 m

depth of supercritical storage. White areas above green are Cenozoic and below green are Jurassic. Modified after Olsson et al. (1988).

SEQUENCES AND CO2 STORAGEJ S R 611

The Potomac Formation/Group and Waste Gate Formation

We evaluate the Potomac in New Jersey, Delaware (where it is a

formation), and Maryland (where it is a group; see below) and extrapolate

our studies to Virginia (where has been termed both a formation and a

group). The Potomac Formation was first named for a unit with an ‘‘upper

portion consisting of highly color-mottled and color-banded clays, with

intercalations of sand and quartzose gravel, and the lower of sand and

gravel with intercalations of clay’’ in outcrop sections in Maryland and

Virginia (McGee 1886). These nonmarine sediments overlie saprolite and

crystalline basement and were considered the oldest in the coastal plain,

possibly being Jurassic according to Marsh (1896), though the paleoflora

indicated correlation to the Lower Cretaceous (Gilbert 1896). The Potomac

in New Jersey and Delaware is a formation (e.g., Owens et al. 1998;

Ramsey 2005); in Maryland, it was raised to group status with the

designation of the Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent formations (units given

younger to older; Clark and Bibbins 1897) and later a lower Waste Gate

Formation (Hansen and Doyle 1982). The Waste Gate Formation has

received considerable attention for carbon storage (Hovorka et al. 2000;

Wickstrom et al. 2005; Gunnulfsen et al. 2013; U.S. Geological Survey

Geological Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team 2013). It

is not clear if the Waste Gate Formation is represented in New Jersey,

though it was correlated as a distinct formation based on logs to the Anchor

Gas Dickinson #1 (AD#1) Cape May, New Jersey well (Figs. 1–3; Olsson

et al. 1988).

Correlations of the Potomac Formation and Group largely rely on log

signatures and pollen biostratigraphy that provide the only age control on

these nonmarine units. A palynological zonation was developed in

Cretaceous Atlantic Coastal Plain continental sections, with the Potomac

Formation initially assigned to Pollen Zones I and II (Brenner 1963) and

later expanded to include Pollen Zone III (Doyle and Robbins 1977). In

this study, we continue the use of Roman numerals for Units I, II, and III to

FIG. 3.—Location map of wells and well-log

cross section for the New Jersey Coastal Plain.

Dashed red line is 800 m structural contour of

supercritical storage. Modified after Sugarman et

al. (2011).


be consistent with previous studies. The Waste Gate Formation was

assigned to pre–Zone I in the wells discussed below based on pollen

(Hansen and Doyle 1982). Ages of these zones were assigned by

correlations with better-dated marine sections in England and Portugal

(Brenner 1963; Doyle and Robbins 1977; Sugarman et al. 2005b), with the

most recent revision by Hochuli et al. (2006) (Fig. 4). These pollen zones

are loosely calibrated to the Geological Time Scale (Gradstein et al. 2012)

and are long in duration (3 zones in ~ 30 Myr; Fig. 4).

Following the division of the Potomac Formation into pollen Zones I, II,

and III, Owens et al. (1998) suggested that there were three cycles in the

Potomac Formation in New Jersey. In New Jersey, only Unit III occurs in

outcrop, where it ‘‘. . .consists of abruptly lensing clay, sand, and less

commonly gravel’’; the older Units II and I are restricted to the subsurface

in New Jersey. Each Potomac unit corresponds to a distinct pollen zone

(Fig. 4) that spans the Barremian to lowermost Cenomanian (ca. 126–98

Ma). Ages are updated in the Results section.

In Delaware, Potomac units C, B, and A (from oldest to youngest) were

established by Benson (2006) based on well-logs and pollen. Benson’s

(2006) units do not correspond exactly to Units I through III in New Jersey.

On the basis of pollen biostratigraphy, Potomac C likely corresponds to

Unit I and the lower part of Unit II, Potomac B to the upper part of Unit II,

and Potomac A to Unit III (Peter McLaughlin, written communication,

2016).

In Maryland, the Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent formations crop out,

and the deeper Waste Gate Formation is found only downdip in the

subsurface (Hansen and Doyle 1982; Hansen 1984). In the updip section of

Maryland’s Coastal Plain, primarily areas west of Chesapeake Bay, the

Patuxent and Patapsco formations were deposited in a depositional basin

by high-energy, braided river systems producing typically blocky, stacked

sand bodies that are generally coarse-grained and laterally extensive

(Hansen and Doyle 1982; Hansen 1984). The axis of the river system was

oriented northwest–southeast and located in the vicinity of present-day

Baltimore. To the southwest of that area, in southern Maryland,

meandering river systems dominated, producing lensoidal channel and

point-bar deposits interbedded with fine-grained overbank and floodplain

deposits (Hansen 1969, 1972). The Arundel Formation, dividing the

Patuxent and Patapsco formations, was deposited during a prolonged

period dominated by fine-grained overbank and floodplain deposits, in

which channel and point-bar sand deposits were quite rare.

The Patuxent, Arundel, and Patapsco formations have been mapped

extensively in updip areas in Maryland based on geophysical log (electric

and gamma-ray logs) signatures, clay–sand content, lithological data, and

pollen biostratigraphy (Hansen 1968, 1972). Much of the work in mapping

the Potomac Group has been done for hydrogeological investigations. In

updip areas, the sand content of the Patuxent and Patapsco formations

ranges from less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent (Hansen 1968,

1969; Otton and Mandle 1984; Staley 2015). While individual sands are

typically local in extent, zones of sands are broadly correlative over

distances exceeding 20 miles (32 km) (Hansen 1968). Likewise, the

Arundel Formation, typically a massive low-permeability clay, is present

over much of the updip portions of the Maryland Coastal Plain, becoming

difficult to identify northeast of Baltimore and in southern Maryland,

where the Patuxent and Patapsco formations become increasingly clayey

(Andreasen et al. 2013; Drummond and Blomquist 1993; Owens 1969;

Staley 2015).

The lateral continuity of Potomac Group sand zones has long been

established in updip sections in Maryland through the correlation of

groundwater levels and pumpage (Staley et al. 2016), trends in long-term

groundwater levels (Achmad and Hansen 2001; Soeder et al. 2007),

numerical groundwater-flow modeling (Andreasen 2007; Drummond

2007), and hydrogeochemical facies (Back 1966). Continuity of layers

into the deeper, downdip section is less well established, due to the limited

well control. The Patuxent and Patapsco formations form major aquifer

systems in Maryland (Andreasen et al. 2013). In many updip areas, the

Patuxent and Lower Patapsco aquifer systems are effectively separated

hydraulically by the confining unit of the Arundel Formation (Andreasen

1999, 2007; Drummond 2007); however, where the Arundel Formation has

thinned, the hydraulic separation may be less pronounced.

Most prior lithologic data on the Potomac were derived from wells

(generally cuttings) and geophysical wire-line logs in updip sections in

New Jersey (Sugarman et al. 2011), Maryland (Andreasen et al. 2013), and

Delaware (Benson 2006). Three updip cores provide ground truth to the

wells and well-logs (Fig. 5): Summit Marina, Delaware (Thornburg 2016),

Fort Mott, New Jersey (Sugarman et al. 2004), and Medford, New Jersey

(Sugarman et al. 2010). No deep wells (with total depths below 800 m) are

available in Delaware, but eight deep wells with logs in New Jersey (four

wells) and Maryland (four wells) penetrated deep reservoirs (Fig. 1)

(Hansen and Doyle 1982; Andreasen et al. 2013; Sugarman et al. 2011).

We use well-logs and pollen data from these rotary wells to correlate the

Waste Gate and Potomac sequences between New Jersey and Maryland.

METHODS

We focus on compiling log and pollen data from downdip wells (. 800

m total depth) to develop a stratigraphic framework for the Potomac

Formation/Group and Waste Gate Formation in the New Jersey and

Maryland coastal plains. Pollen zones for the sections evaluated here were

taken from the following references: Fort Mott cores (G. Brenner and P.

McLaughlin in Sugarman et al. 2004) (Fig. 2), Medford cores (G. Brenner

and P. McLaughlin in Sugarman et al. 2010), Summit Marina cores

FIG. 4.—Stratigraphic correlation chart of

pollen zones and lithologic units.


FIG

.5.—

Corr

elat

ion

of

lith

olo

gy,

logs,

and

dep

osi

tional

envir

onm

ents

for

Sum

mit

Mar

ina,

Fort

Mott

,an

dM

edfo

rd.

Bla

ckar

row

spoin

tin

dir

ecti

on

of

incr

easi

ng

acco

mm

odat

ion

bas

edon

FS

AC

set

stac

kin

gpat

tern

.

Max

imum

floodin

gsu

rfac

eeq

uiv

alen

ts(M

FS

e)ar

epla

ced

atco

nver

gen

tar

row

s,an

dse

quen

ceboundar

ies

(red

lines

)at

div

ergen

tar

row

s.N

ote

that

the

pre

vio

usl

yid

enti

fied

sequen

ceboundar

ies

are

support

edby

the

acco

mm

odat

ion

arro

ws

(at

leve

lsw

ith

min

imal

acco

mm

odat

ion)

and

two

hig

her

-ord

erse

quen

ces

hav

ebee

nid

enti

fied

(das

hed

red

lines

).M

odifi

edaf

ter

Thorn

burg

(2016).

TS

Te,

tran

sgre

ssiv

e-sy

stem

s-tr

act

equiv

alen

t

pla

ced

bet

wee

nse

quen

ceboundar

ies

and

MF

Se.

HS

Te,

hig

hst

and-s

yst

ems-

trac

teq

uiv

alen

tpla

ced

bet

wee

nM

FS

ean

dth

eov

erly

ing

sequen

ceboundar

y.


(Thornburg 2016; see supplemental Table 1), New Jersey wells (complied

from unpublished pollen zones primarily from G. Brenner by Sugarman et

al. 2011 for the AD#1, Butler Place, Ragovin, Warren Grove/Oxly, and

New Brooklyn Park wells) (Figs. 3, 6–8; Zones given in supplemental

Table 2), and Maryland (Robbins et al. 1975; Hansen and Doyle 1982;

Trapp et al. 1984).

Because there are only four deep (. 800 m) wells in New Jersey and

four in Maryland (all consisting of well-logs and cuttings), we constructed

an updip strike cross section in New Jersey (Figs. 3, 6) using three

coreholes (Summit Marina, Fort Mott, Medford; Fig. 5) and other wells

with geophysical logs. The cores provide lithostratigraphic and paleo-

environmental ground truth to the gamma logs (Fig. 5) that can be

extended along strike and downdip to wells having only logs and cuttings.

Lithology for the cores (Fig. 5) was determined by quantitatively

measuring weight percent mud (, 63 lm), very fine to fine sand (63–

125 lm), and medium to coarse sand (. 125 lm) in washed samples at

~ 1.5 m intervals. We semiquantitatively estimated the abundance of

glauconite, shells, and mica in the sand fraction (. 63 lm) by splitting

samples into aliquots and visually estimating percentages on a picking tray.

The semiquantitative and quantitative percent data were combined and

presented as ‘‘lithology’’; these lithologic data exhibit distinct trends with

grain size (Fig. 5). We display gamma log and resistivity logs, lithology,

pollen zones, and environment of deposition as previously reported

(Browning et al. 2008; Sugarman et al. 2004; Sugarman et al. 2010;

Thornburg 2016).

We updated previous studies of Fort Mott and Medford (Sugarman et al.

2004; Sugarman et al. 2010) by adding fluvial aggradation cycles (FACs;

Fig. 5). FACs and FAC sets identified in the three updip cores (Thornburg

2016) allow us to objectively identify sequence boundaries and systems

tracts based on stacking patterns. The smallest units, known as FACs, are

recognized as typically fining-upward sediment packages, usually with

paleosols at the upper boundary (Atchley et al. 2004; Atchley et al. 2013).

At larger scales, FACs are components in decameter-scale FAC sets that

record fluvial stability and avulsion. FAC sets are recognized as a stacking

of individual FACs that generally fine upward; FAC sets demonstrate a

gradual upward increase in paleosol maturity and drainage or an upward

increase to decrease in paleosol maturity with associated good to poor

drainage (Atchley et al. 2004). As base-level rise slows and begins to fall,

accommodation is reduced and alluvial aggradation gives way to more

mature paleosols associated with enhanced drainage and thinner individual

FACs. Sequence boundaries can thus be placed above the mature paleosols

with the best drainage before base-level rise begins to again increase the

frequency of avulsions and flooding events. These sequence boundaries are

typically associated with an upsection change from thinning FACs to

thickening FACs, and by extension the maximum flooding surface (MFS)

equivalent is placed at the upsection change from thickening FACs to

thinning FACs (Fig. 5; Atchley et al. 2004; Atchley et al. 2013). FACs were

assigned after a detailed grain-size analysis revealed distinct fining-upward

successions, usually capped with a paleosol deposit (Fig. 5; Thornburg

2016). Ultimately the stacking pattern of these FACs allows the placement

of the MFS and sequence boundaries. We provide examples of placement

of stratal boundaries in the Results section; detailed discussion of FACs is

the subject of a future contribution.

Analysis of New Jersey Coastal Plain rotary wells is updated from

Sugarman et al. (2011). The New Jersey Geological and Water Survey

compiled 56 southern New Jersey Coastal Plain well logs, digitized into

LAS standard format (including deep wells at US Geological Survey

[USGS] Island Beach, Dorothy/Ragovin, Warren Grove/Oxly, and AD#1).

Geophysical logs including gamma, spontaneous potential (SP), resistivity,

long and short normal and induction generally constitute the suite used for

groundwater studies. Here, we focused on gamma logs (Figs. 6–8), except

for the AD#1 well which has only spontaneous potential (SP) (Fig. 7).

Sugarman et al. (2011) selected 25 well logs to construct four well-log

cross sections; we update these and present one updip strike section

(section A–A0; Fig. 6) and two dip sections (B–B0 to AD#1 and C–C0 to

Island Beach) (Figs. 7, 8). The strike section is based entirely on gamma

logs, with low values (sands) shaded. The dip sections are also all gamma

logs except AD#1, where we shaded low values of SP logs. Since

Sugarman et al. (2011) determined that only the Potomac and older

formations were suitable for storage, we focus on these units (Fig 6). In

general, we used gamma logs to correlate units and used the limited pollen

data to support our correlations. In the rare instances where pollen data

appear uncertain or even contradict correlations (e.g., Butler Place,

discussed below), we favored the log interpretations. For example, at

Medford (Fig. 5), there is a possible identification of Zone IIC at 761.1–

762.2 ft (231.98–232.32 m) above the sequence boundary, yet we place

this in sequence III (Brenner assigned this level to undifferentiated Zone

III–IIC and McLaughlin to Zone IIC, both in Sugarman et al. 2010).

The well data were used to construct structural contour maps for New

Jersey (Fig. 9). Using ESRI ArcMap 9.x., point files were created for each

well that contained depth to selected surfaces. Point data were converted to

a 2-D surface (raster) using ArcMap’s 3-D analyst module. These surfaces

were contoured using a kriging with a spherical semi-variogram model.

Contours were connected to surface contacts defined by mapping

exposures of the different units. Structural contour maps were compared

with previous efforts (Zapecza 1989; Kulpecz et al. 2008); these studies

had greater number of updip wells but lacked the deepest wells that place

constraints on the Potomac Formation. They were used to check contouring

of the updip locations. The structural contour maps confirm that only the

Potomac and Waste Gate sands reach sufficient burial depth for

sequestration (. 800 m) onshore.

We revisit correlations in Maryland originally made by Hansen and Doyle

(1982) and Owens and Gohn (1985) and correlate the AD#1 well to

Maryland by projecting it along pre-Mesozoic basement contours (Benson

1984) (Fig. 1). This regional ‘‘jump’’ correlation is supported by pollen data

(see below). Pollen data and published age interpretations (Brown et al. 1972;

Hansen and Doyle 1982; McLaughlin in Benson 2006) were used to guide

the correlations as discussed below. The downhole logs from Maryland (Fig.

10) consist of SP logs at the Ohio Hammond, AD#1, Mobil Bethards, and

Ocean City Esso wells. We added the gamma log for the updip Crisfield

Airport well (Andreasen et al. 2013) and correlated the Maryland wells to the

AD#1 (Fig. 10). All log data were averaged over a 1.8 m vertical interval. In

the supplementary material, we display the deep downhole logs for SP,

resistivity, and, where available, gamma logs for the five wells (Crisfield

Airport, Ohio Hammond, AD#1, Mobile Bethards, and Ocean City Esso)

along with the updip Cambridge well (Dorchester County, Maryland).

RESULTS

Age Correlation of Units

We update previous chronostratigraphic charts (Sugarman et al. 2005b;

Sugarman et al. 2011; Thornburg 2016) and show correlations of units in

Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey (Fig. 4). The units we examined are

primarily Lower Cretaceous, though they extend into the lowermost Upper

Cretaceous (lower Cenomanian). The long durations of the palynology

zones do not allow firm determination of hiatuses, though they can be

inferred in association with sequence boundaries and the truncation of

units updip (Fig. 4).

The Waste Gate Formation is lower Lower Cretaceous. It was assigned

to pre-Zone I at the Ohio Hammond, Mobil Bethards, and Chrisfield wells

in Maryland (Fig. 1; Robbins et al. 1975; Hansen and Doyle 1982), and

correlated with the Berriasian to Hauterivian Stages (Fig. 4; Habib 1977;

Hansen and Doyle 1982). Brenner (1981) reported early angiosperms in

the Ohio Hammond well, suggesting that the Waste Gate reaches into the

early Barremian. The ages of the Potomac Unit I and the underlying Waste


FIG

.6.—

Gam

ma-

log

stri

ke

corr

elat

ion

A–A

0(F

ig.

3)

from

Fort

Mott

toF

reeh

old

,N

ewJe

rsey

.L

owgam

ma-

log

valu

esar

esh

aded

.M

odifi

edaf

ter

Sugar

man

etal

.(2

011).


FIG. 7.—Well-log cross section B–B0, modified after Sugarman et al. (2011). Thick red line shows 800 m depth of supercritical storage. SP, spontaneous potential. Low log

values are shaded


Gate Formation at this AD#1, NJ well (Fig. 7) are loosely constrained;

Brown et al. (1972) assigned the top of Potomac I sands at the AD#1 well

to Berriasian–Aptian, and the underlying Waste Gate Formation may be as

old as uppermost Jurassic (Olsson et al. 1988).

Potomac Units I to III are ?Barremian to early Cenomanian (Fig. 4).

Unit I was assigned to pollen Zone I and correlated to the Aptian (Hochuli

et al. 2006), though it may extend to the Barremian (Doyle and Robbins

1977), with an age of ~ 111–126 Ma (Gradstein et al. 2012). Global

FIG. 8.—Well-log cross section C–C 0, modified after Sugarman et al. (2011). Thick red line shows 800 m depth of supercritical storage. SP, spontaneous potential.


FIG. 9.—Structural contour maps to the top of the Potomac Unit I, II, and III sands and the isopach of the Potomac Unit I sands. Thick red line shows 800 m depth of

supercritical storage. Modified after Sugarman et al. (2011).


correlations of this unit are limited, although it appears to correlate with the

Mississauga Formation sands found beneath the present-day continental

shelf (Monteverde et al. 2011). We tentatively show an inferred hiatus for

the much of the Barremian based on the Waste Gate extending into the

early Barremian and the interpretation that Zone I may extend into the

Barremian but is primarily Aptian. Unit II is assigned to pollen Zone II and

correlated to the middle to late Albian to the earliest Cenomanian (Doyle

and Robbins 1977; Hochuli et al. 2006), with an age of ~ 100–111 Ma

(Gradstein et al. 2012). Potomac Units I and II are not represented updip in

New Jersey due to erosion (Owens et al. 1998), but they are represented

downdip in the subsurface (Fig. 4). In Delaware, well-log correlations

(Benson 2006; McLaughlin, written communication, 2017) indicate that

Unit I thins and disappears in an updip direction, with Unit II lying on

basement in the most updip areas; in Maryland Unit I lies on basement

updip. Unit III is assigned to pollen Zone III and correlated to the early

Cenomanian (Doyle and Robbins 1977; Hochuli et al. 2006) with an age of

~ 98–100 Ma (Gradstein et al. 2012). In the Ancora, New Jersey, core, the

Potomac Formation is unconformably overlain by the Bass River

Formation, assigned to lower Cenomanian nannofossil Zone CC9 (Miller

et al. 2004), indicating that the Potomac Formation barely extends into the

earliest Late Cretaceous. Potomac Unit III appears to correlate with the

offshore Logan Canyon sands, another potential CO2 sequestration target

(Monteverde et al. 2011; Lombardi et al. 2015).

Sequence Stratigraphy of Cores

Continuous cores at three updip sites (Fig. 5; Fort Mott, Medford, New

Jersey, and Summit Marina Delaware) provide insight into sequence

stratigraphy, sediment architecture, and facies stacking patterns of the

Potomac and verify that Units I to III are distinct and correlatable

sequences (Fig. 5). Data from the Fort Mott core provide the most complete

stratigraphic record, because Unit I was not sampled at Summit Marina andis largely coarse sands lacking pollen at Medford. In the Fort Mott core,

Potomac Unit II and Unit III have medium sands at their bases, overlain by

thick silty clay confining beds (Fig. 5). These sand bodies can be correlatedamong the three sites (Fig. 5), as well as across New Jersey from Fort Mott

to Freehold using well-log correlations (Figs. 3, 6), though it is likely that

individual beds are discontinuous. Based on the widespread continuity ofthe units, Sugarman et al. (2005b, 2010) suggested that Potomac Units II

and III (and possibly Unit I) are regionally significant depositional

sequences.Coring at the three updip sites (Fig. 5) has also shed light on the

depositional environments of the Potomac Formation (Browning et al.

2008). Early studies noted that the Potomac was deposited in fluvial(Glaser 1969) and fluvial–deltaic (Owens and Gohn 1985) environments in

a warm subtropical climate with intense weathering (Wolfe and Upchurch

1987) and abundant sediment supply from the Appalachian Mountains.

The Potomac has generally been assigned to delta-plain environments inNew Jersey (Owens and Gohn 1985; Owens et al. 1998) that are divided

into two distinct subenvironments: the upper delta plain (deposited above

higher high tide, containing fresh-water deposits and distinguished bygreater soil development) and the lower delta plain (affected by fluvial and/

or tidal processes, containing brackish-water deposits). Studies of the

updip cores suggest deposition on the upper delta plain for the upper siltyclays and lower delta plain and perhaps delta front for the sands. The

exception is the Potomac I at Medford, which is interpreted as braided-river

deposits (Sugarman et al. 2010).Most of the silty clay facies of the Potomac have been interpreted as

being deposited in an anastomosing river system on a low-gradient upper

delta plain (Sugarman et al. 2005b; Browning et al. 2008). Anastomosingriver systems (e.g., the modern Orinoco) have bars separating channels

similar to braided systems, but differ because channel and bar stability

FIG. 10.—Simplified well-log correlation of AD#1 (AD) Cape May with Maryland. AD#1 was projected along basement contours of Benson (1984). See supplemental

Figure 1 for full version including pollen zones, other available logs, and the updip Cambridge, Dorchester well. Thick red line shows 800 m depth of supercritical storage.


prevents the river from reworking organic-rich sediments. As such,

anastomosing systems are dominated by silty clay floodplain deposits with

common soils and organic-rich sediments (Makaske 2001). Studies of the

paleosols in the three updip cores show that they consist of: 1) weakly

developed, immature soils formed under poor drainage conditions; 2)

moderately developed soils formed under alternating wet/dry conditions;

and 3) well-developed, mature soils formed under well-drained conditions

(Thornburg 2016).

An analysis of FAC stacking patterns reveals sequence boundaries and

systems tracts (Fig. 5) at three updip sites using the methodology proposed

by Atchley et al. (2004, 2013) and Thornburg (2016). Sequence

boundaries, MFSs, and inferred systems tracts are revealed by the stacking

pattern of FACs. Our analysis strongly suggests that the Potomac II and III

are distinct depositional sequences (Fig. 3) and the identification of unit

boundaries as sequence boundaries. Firmly establishing that these

lithologic and pollen units are sequences provides greater confidence in

the regional correlations. In addition, we provide evidence for higher-order

sequences within the major units. For example, candidate sequence

boundaries occur within Units III and II at all three sites (dashed red lines,

Fig. 5), suggesting that they are associated with regional base-level

lowerings.

For example, at Fort Mott, there are 9 FACs above the base of Unit III

(363.6 ft, 110.8 m) that thicken upsection, with most capped by thin,

weakly developed paleosols. Above this level, (281.5 ft; 85.8 m) there are 6

FACs that begin to generally thin upsection. This shift in stacking pattern is

interpreted as a MFS. The 6 thinning-upward FACs are capped with

paleosols of increasing maturity and drainage, with an abrupt shift (223.8

ft, 68.2 m) to thickening upward with decreased paleosol maturity and

drainage. This shift in stacking pattern is interpreted as a higher-order

sequence boundary (223.8 ft, 68.2 m) within Unit III (Fig. 5).

Well-Log Cross Sections

New Jersey Potomac Unit III.—In the updip Summit Marina and Fort

Mott coreholes, Potomac Unit III has a distinct lower fluvial–deltaic sand

subunit and an upper paleosol clay subunit (Fig. 5). This pattern appears to

typify sequences in the nonmarine sections of the coastal plain. The lower

sands show a progressive thickening of FACs upsection, interpreted as the

transgressive-systems tract equivalent (Thornburg 2016). The contact

between the sands and the overlying paleosol clays is interpreted as the

maximum-flooding surface equivalent (MFSe), and the paleosols are

interpreted as the highstand systems tract equivalent (HSTe; Thornburg

2016).

Our updip well-log cross section shows the continuity of the Unit III

sand-prone interval (Fig. 6). The lower sand–upper clay pattern can be

traced through Salem, Gloucester, and Camden counties (Fig. 6); north of

this, the upper clay subunit becomes locally sandy in its upper part (e.g., at

Medford; Figs. 5, 6). Along strike (Fig. 5), the Unit III lower sands thicken

to over 60 m and then thin to ~ 15 m on the South Jersey High, and can be

traced from northern Delaware to Monmouth County, New Jersey. The

continuity of the sand subunit over such a wide region documents that this

is an extensive sand body (. 100 km scale); such sand bodies typically

develop in delta-front environments, though firm evidence for marine

deposition is lacking. The sand zones in the lower Potomac Unit III

sequence are laterally continuous across long distances; however,

individual sands may be local in extent (Benson 2006). Stacking patterns

of logs tied to core lithology show that the Unit III sands consist of three

coarsening-upward parasequences at Summit Marina (Fig. 5); the basal

parasequence above the basal Unit III sequence boundary at Fort Mott

(363.6 ft, 110.83 m; Fig. 5) also coarsens up. Such log parasequences are

typical of classic river or wave-dominated deltaic stacking (Van Wagoner et

al. 1990), in which the sands thicken upward, percent sands increases

upward, and there are sharp upper contacts with abrupt shifts to finer-grained facies at flooding surfaces (parasequence boundaries).

The fact that the Unit III sand–clay package is a sequence provides

confidence in its integrity as a reservoir and its confinement by the HSTeclays. Tracing Potomac Unit III sands downdip (Figs. 7, 8) shows that they

thicken to over 75 m at the AD#1 well. Though the sands attain similar

thickness at Island Beach (Fig. 8), they attain burial depths greater than800 m only in the southern portion of Cape May County (Fig. 8, 9). Thus,

Unit III is potentially suitable for carbon storage only in the Cape May

Peninsula (Fig. 9).

New Jersey Potomac Unit II.—The Albian to lowermost Cenomanian

Potomac Unit II has been mapped throughout the New Jersey Coastal Plain(Sugarman et al. 2011). The lower sand–upper clay pattern is well

represented at the Fort Mott corehole (Fig. 5). Sugarman et al. (2005b,

2011) noted that placement of the lower sequence boundary at this site wasuncertain, either at the base of sands at 182.9 m or 196.3 m (Fig. 5).

Analysis of FACs suggests that the sequence boundary is at the base of the

lower sands at 196.3 m (Fig. 5). The upper part of the Potomac Unit IIsands were recovered at Summit Marina, but the base of the sands was not

penetrated. In the updip strike section (Fig. 6), the Potomac II sands appearcontinuous in our study area, although the geophysical well-log character

varies from one distinct blocky sand body (e.g., with a boxcar shape as at

Clayton, New Jersey; Fig. 6) to numerous sand bodies at other sites (Fig.6). At the ODP Leg 174AX Medford site, core and log data show at least

six to seven sand bodies in the Potomac Unit II sequence; the upper clays

are thinner and interrupted by sands (Fig. 5). This variability is attributableto deposition of the Potomac II sands and clays in a fluvial, anastomosing-

river environment.

The Potomac II sands thicken and thin downdip. On Section C–C 0 (Fig.7), the basal Potomac II sands thicken downdip from Clayton (23 m) to

AD#1 well (84 m). There is one distinct blocky sand with a boxcar logpattern at Clayton, but the basal sands at downdip AD#1 are separated by

three clay units (Fig. 7). On dip section C–C0 from Browns Mills to Island

Beach (Fig. 8), Unit II sands are 58 m thick at Butler Place (but too shallowfor carbon storage) and thin at Oxley (33 m), where they are interrupted by

one clay, and Island Beach (35 m), where they are interrupted by two clays.

Though the stacking pattern of FACs indicates that the Potomac II is adistinct sequence, there is a higher-order sequence within it at all three

coreholes (Fig. 5). The Potomac II sequence appears to have thick

confining beds above it both updip along strike and downdip. However,compared to the Potomac III and Potomac I, the sands appear to be thinner,

more discontinuous, and less suitable for carbon storage.

New Jersey Potomac Unit I and Waste Gate.—Thick, confined

Potomac Unit I and Waste Gate sands provide reservoirs in the New Jersey

Coastal Plain. In updip wells, the Potomac I exhibits considerable lateralvariability. At Fort Mott, Potomac I consists of the usual package of a lower

fluvial sand subunit, with interbedded clays deposited in paleosols onfloodplains and swamps (Fig. 5), and an upper subunit consisting of

predominantly thick clays deposited as paleosols. At Medford, Unit I has a

blocky gamma-log pattern and consists of thick, pebbly coarse sands withinterbedded light gray coarse–medium sands with dark laminae and

gravelly sands interpreted as braided-river deposits. The variability

continues along strike, with similar blocky gamma-log patterns at NewBrooklyn and Woodstown (Fig. 5). In contrast, the Monroe, Clayton, and

PSE&G wells have lower gamma-log values in the lower subunit,

indicating less sand. Again, this variability suggests multiple fluvialsources with both braided and anastomosing river systems, and suggests

that fine-scale continuity may be in question.Like the overlying units, Potomac Unit I generally thickens downdip,

but there are only four deep (. 800 m) downdip wells in New Jersey, so

constraints on its age and paleoenvironment are limited. At Island Beach,


Unit I sands are 79 m thick and buried by more than 1 km of sediment; on

gamma logs they consist of several blocky sands separated by thinner clays

(Fig. 8). They appear to be a suitable target for carbon storage. However,

the Unit I sand thins and becomes finer grained ~ 11.5 km updip at the

Warren Grove/Oxly well (Fig. 8). At the AD#1 well, the Unit I sands are

125 m thick and appear to be continuous with the Waste Gate Formation

sands (Fig. 7).

The Waste Gate-Unit I sands comprise a reservoir that is nearly 500 m

thick in the downdip sections in New Jersey (AD#1) and Maryland (Ocean

City). The Unit I-Waste Gate at AD#1 has 8–12 thick blocky log units

separated by comparatively thin mud units (Fig. 7). Updip, differentiation

of Unit II, Unit I, and the Waste Gate Formation is difficult at the Dorothy/

Ragovin well (Fig. 7) because of contradictory pollen data. Pollen data

suggest an anomalously thick Potomac Unit II, but these data are likely

compromised by cavings (Sugarman et al. 2011) and the correlations

shown (Fig. 7) are based on log interpretations. There is a blocky sand at

the base of the Dorothy/Ragovin well that appears, based on the finding of

similar signature downdip, to be the Waste Gate; the overlying Potomac

Unit I section from 883 to 1036 m at Dorothy/Ragovin appears to be sandy

overall and potentially suitable for carbon storage (Fig. 7). Though the

blocky sand zones of Unit I and the Waste Gate Formation appear in

similar positions in widely spaced wells, individual sand beds are likely

discontinuous as observed in updip studies (Benson 2006). At all four

downdip holes, the reservoir sands are confined by the thick Unit I clays

and overlying confining units.

With the possible exception of the AD#1 well (Olsson et al. 1988), the

Waste Gate Formation had not been previously identified in New Jersey.

We note that blocky sands, tentatively identified as Waste Gate Formation,

in the Dorothy/Ragovin well are separated from the Potomac Unit I at

AD#1 by a thin (6 m) clay. From a reservoir point of view, we lump

Potomac Unit I and the Waste Gate Formation in our volume calculations

(see Discussion, Carbon Storage Potential volumetric estimates).

Correlations to Maryland Well-Log Cross Sections

We display four deep (. 1.5 km) downhole logs in Maryland (Crisfield

Airport, Ohio Hammond, Mobile Bethards, and Ocean City Esso) and

correlate them to the AD #1 well in Cape May, New Jersey (Fig. 10). We

also include the updip Cambridge, Maryland, well and details of pollen

biostratigraphy (see Supplemental Material, Fig. 1). The regional ‘‘jump’’of correlation to New Jersey by projecting AD#1 along pre-Mesozoic

basement contours (Benson 1984) (Fig. 1) is supported by pollen zonation

in the Maryland and New Jersey wells.

The total thickness of Potomac Unit III in Maryland ranges from ~ 125

m at Mobile Bethards to ~ 195 m at Cambridge (Fig. 10; Table 2).

However, total sand content in the unit ranges significantly from ~ 15 to

139 m thick (~ 50 m average thickness); in contrast, at the along-strike

AD#1 well in New Jersey, total sand thickness is ~ 70 m. Sand percentages

range from ~ 12% of the total unit thickness at Mobile Bethards to 100%

at Crisfield Airport in Maryland, and ~ 27% at AD#1 in New Jersey.

In the Potomac Unit III, sand layers are confined by an upper Unit III

clayey zone (confining bed) that increases in thickness somewhat downdip

from ~ 35 m at Ohio Hammond, ~ 55 m at Mobile Bethards, and ~ 60 m

at Ocean City Esso (Fig. 10; Table 2). Updip, the upper confining bed is

absent updip of Crisfield Airport (supplemental Fig. 1), where sands of

Unit III are in direct contact with sands of the overlying Magothy

Formation. Confining beds reappear in Unit III farther updip at Cambridge,

with a thickness of ~ 45–105 m; the range in confining-bed thickness is

attributed to discrepancies between geophysical-log and lithologic-log clay

content. The confining bed is much thicker at AD#1 (~ 140 m) than at

Mobile Bethards (~ 55 m). Potomac Unit III is also confined by overlying

Cretaceous to Paleogene muds–mudstones in New Jersey (composite

confining unit; CCU) (Zapecza 1989) and Eocene–Late Cretaceous silts

TA

BL

E1

.—T

hic

knes

s(i

nm

eter

s)o

fth

esa

nd

un

its

inN

ewJe

rsey

(mo

difi

edfr

om

Su

ga

rma

net

al.

20

11

).

Dep

thto

Unit

inm

eter

s

Sec

tion

A–A

’S

ecti

on

B–B

’S

ecti

on

C–C

’

Fort

Mott

174A

XW

oods

tow

nP

SE

GC

layto

nM

onro

e

New

Bro

okly

n

Anco

ra

174A

XM

edfo

rdP

ember

ton

Jack

son

Fre

ehold

Anch

or

Dic

kin

son

Doro

thy/

Rag

ovin

Buen

aC

layto

nP

embe

rton

Bro

wns

Mil

ls

Butl

er

Pla

ceW

oodm

ansi

e

War

ren

Gro

ve/O

xly

Isla

nd

Bea

ch

Bas

eof

com

posi

te

confi

nin

gunit

41

106

132

197

265

244

292

134

194

223

199

671

451

378

197

194

268

328

415

482

533

Bas

eM

agoth

y44

116

150

227

294

272

324

175

230

251

249

686

479

407

227

230

285

368

440

512

585

bas

eR

arit

an123

163

235

312

290

350

190

257

282

266

756

538

415

235

257

x408

468

611

640

Top

PII

I(t

op

sand)

90

171

233

280

349

376

x235

325

335

317

913

628

503

280

325

x447

520

670

724

Bas

eP

III

(bas

esa

nd)

111

211

258

296

366

397

x240

x396

338

998

639

523

296

xx

479

x698

808

Top

PII

(top

sand)

170

249

413

405

433

454

x265

x410

376

1321

860

x405

xx

600

x776

870

Bas

eP

II(b

ase

sand)

183

275

428

427

443

495

x300

x434

387

1390

1067

x427

xx

xx

807

907

Top

PI

(top

sand)

234

279

488

448

511

572

x307

xx

x1423

1091

x434

xx

xx

949

1081

Top

Pre

-PI

(Was

teG

ate)

x1579

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

Bas

eP

I(b

asem

ent)

?253

349

544

457

536

592

xx

xx

x1942

1100

x457

xx

xx

x1160

Bott

om

of

log

250

349

549

512

616

634

357

332

347

440

402

1951

1132

610

511

347

287

658

543

964

1204

Ele

vati

on

(m)

1.2

12.2

3.0

42.7

45.1

33.8

31.7

11.9

46.9

39.3

48.8

6.7

27.7

30.5

42.7

46.9

31.7

45.7

55.5

40.8

1.5

x¼

unit

bel

owto

tal

dep

thof

hole


and clays in Maryland (Andreasen et al. 2013). The overlying CCU is

much thicker in New Jersey (~ 500 m thick) than in Maryland (~ 225 m

thick). The thick CCU in New Jersey also provides stratigraphic continuity

and integrity as a seal updip. This is less true in Maryland, where the fine-

grained Paleogene section is much thinner than in New Jersey (and thins

updip) and the Miocene sands are thicker (see supplemental Fig. 1

illustrating this at the updip Cambridge well).

The total thickness of Potomac Unit II in Maryland ranges from ~ 171

m at Cambridge to ~ 411 m at Mobile Bethards (Fig. 10; Table 2). Total

sand thickness within the unit ranges from ~ 36 to 166 m (~ 94 m average

thickness); at the along-strike AD#1 well in New Jersey, total sand

thickness is ~ 67 m. Sand percentages range from ~ 20% of the total unit

thickness at Mobile Bethards to ~ 42% at Ocean City Esso in Maryland,

and ~ 17% at AD#1 in New Jersey.

Potomac Unit II sands show considerable variability, and there are

ambiguities in their precise correlation. At AD#1 in New Jersey, lower

Potomac Unit II sands occur as five to six thin sand bodies separated by

thin clays from 1310 to 1390 m and are underlain by clays assigned to

pollen Zone I. At Mobile Bethards in Maryland, the Unit II sands consist of

seven bodies separated by thin clays from 875 to 1050 m and are underlain

by thick (~ 90 m) clays, assigned to pollen Zone II–I (Hansen and Doyle

1982), that are part of the Arundel Clay confining unit (Andreasen et al.

2013). Downdip at Ocean City Esso, there are sand bodies throughout Unit

II; three to four thin sand bodies are present from 1060 to 1200 m in the

lower part of Unit II and a thick, blocky sand occurs in the upper part

(900–1000 m). There are three possible correlations of Potomac Unit II

from New Jersey to Maryland:

1. Pollen Zone I–II clays in Maryland below the lower Unit II sands are,

in fact, Zone II and these clays pinchout or transition into sandy

facies in New Jersey; this is the interpretation presented based on

current data (Fig. 10).

2. The lower Unit II sands in New Jersey pinch out or transition into

clayey facies into Maryland and the sands in Maryland are younger

than in New Jersey.

3. The clays below the lower Unit II sands in Maryland are actually

Zone I and thus older than Unit II; further pollen studies are needed

to test this hypothesis.

Though any of the sand bodies in Unit II could have carbon-storage

potential, they are generally thin (, 25 m), except for the thick (100 m),

blocky upper Potomac Unit II sand at Ocean City Esso in Maryland. The

number of sand bodies seems to vary, and as in the updip studies in

Delaware (see below), it appears that these sands are not continuous, but

discontinuous and blebby. The Unit II sands at both Bethards and Ocean

City approach the updip depth limit for supercritical storage (875 and 900

m for their tops, respectively).

The uppermost confining bed in Unit II varies in thickness from ~ 33 m

at Ohio Hammond to ~ 140 m at Mobile Bethards (Fig. 10; Table 2). The

confining unit is absent at Ocean City Esso, where upper sands of Unit II

are overlain by ~ 20 m of clay at the base of Unit III. At Crisfield Airport,

the uppermost confining bed is also absent and sands of Units II and III are

in direct contact. Updip at Cambridge, ~ 30 m of clay confines Unit II

sands. Approximately 116 m of clay confines the sands in Unit II at AD#1.

The total thickness of Potomac Unit I in Maryland ranges from ~ 283 m

at Cambridge to ~ 515 m at Ohio Hammond (Fig. 10; Table 2). Total sand

content within the unit ranges from ~ 88 to 223 m thick (~ 160 m average

thickness); at the along-strike AD#1 well in New Jersey, total sand


thickness at Cambridge to ~ 49% at Ocean City Esso in Maryland, and

~ 67% at AD#1 in New Jersey. The Unit I sands at AD#1 are blocky and

have only thin (, 7 m) interbedded clay layers; in contrast, Mobile

Bethards and Ocean City Esso have more numerous, thicker (up to 15 m)

interbedded clay layers.

Potomac Unit I sands are confined at the top by clayey zones at the base

of Unit II at Mobile Bethards (~ 98-m-thick clayey zone) and Ocean City

Esso (~ 80-m-thick clayey zone) (Fig. 10; Table 2). Those clayey zones

were previously mapped as the Arundel Clay confining unit (Andreasen et

al. 2013), which, as defined in that study, may include overlying clay of the

Patapsco Formation as well as clay of the underlying Patuxent Formation.

Pollen data suggest that part of the clay layer at the base of Unit II may be

younger (Zone II) than the Arundel Formation (Zone I) (Hansen and Doyle

1982). Below the uppermost sands at Mobile Bethards and Ocean City

Esso are relatively thick clayey zones (~ 150 m and ~ 82 m, respectively)

that confine deeper Unit I sands. Updip, at Ohio Hammond, Crisfield

Airport, and Cambridge, Unit I is confined at the top by ~ 44 m, ~ 64 m,

and ~ 88 m, respectively, of Unit I clays (Arundel Clay confining unit)

(Trapp et al. 1984; Andreasen et al. 2013). In contrast to Mobile Bethards,

the upper confining unit at AD#1 is ~ 30 m thick. Potomac Unit I sands

can be traced updip to Cambridge, where they are confined by Unit I clays

that are over 100 m thick (supplemental Fig. 1). The continuity of the

confining beds on the Potomac I in Maryland is less certain updip of

Cambridge, and further studies are warranted.

The total thickness of the Waste Gate Unit in Maryland ranges from

~ 94 m at Crisfield Airport to ~ 466 m at Mobile Bethards (Fig. 10; Table

TABLE 2.—Thickness and number of sands in the Potomac and Waste Gate units in Maryland.

Well

Reservoir Units

Unit III Unit II Unit I Waste Gate

Total Unit

Thickness

(m)

# of

Sand

Layers

Total Sand

Thickness

(m) Sand %

Total Unit

Thickness

(m)

# of

Sand

Layers

Total Sand

Thickness

(m) Sand %

Total Unit

Thickness

(m)

# of

Sand

Layers

Total Sand

Thickness

(m) Sand %

Total Unit

Thickness

(m)

# of

Sand

Layers

Total Sand

Thickness

(m) Sand %

Cambridge1 195 8 52 (148) 27 (76) 171 7 36 (110) 21 (64) 283 10 88 (132) 31 (47) 0 – – –

Crisfield Airport 139 1 139 100 312 8 100 32 429 13 137 32 94 6 81 86

Ohio Hammond 149 6 20 14 305 11 85 28 515 21 223 43 204 12 168 82

AD#1 251 13 69 27 390 13 67 17 186 9 125 67 363 14 287 79

Mobile Bethards 125 3 15 12 411 14 84 20 387 16 135 35 466 25 282 61

Ocean City Esso 134 4 26 19 396 7 166 42 439 16 216 49 451 29 288 64

Average total sand

thickness in

MD, m

50 94 160 204

1 Numbers in parentheses are based on lithologic descriptions of drill cuttings described primarily as sand (Trapp et al. 1984).


2). Total sand thickness in the unit ranges from ~ 81 to 288 m (~ 204 maverage thickness); at the along-strike AD#1 well in New Jersey, total sand


thickness at Mobile Bethards to ~ 86% at Crisfield Airport in Maryland,and ~ 79% at AD#1 in New Jersey.

The Waste Gate sands pinch out updip between Crisfield Airport and

Cambridge (supplemental Fig. 1). The Waste Gate Unit sands appear to behydraulically continuous with Potomac Unit I sands at most downdip sites

in Maryland and along strike at AD#1. Thus, although the Waste Gate

pinches out updip, the sands of Unit I continue updip, and the Waste Gatereservoir may not be confined. The greatest separation between the units

occurs at Ohio Hammond with a total of ~ 40 m of clay–shale.

The ?Jurassic sections below the Waste Gate Unit also contain sands.There is a thin (6 m) confining unit near the base of the Waste Gate Unit at

AD#1 that overlies thin (15 m) ?Tithonian sands (Brown et al. 1972) on topof pre-Mesozoic basement rock. Further modern pollen studies are needed

to verify the presence of Jurassic strata in the New Jersey Coastal Plain.

There is a thick confining unit at the top of the ?Jurassic section at MobileBethards that overlies discontinuous ?Jurassic sands that total ~ 33 m in

thickness. There is a 55-m-thick confining unit at the top of the ?Jurassic

section at the Ocean City Esso well, but the underlying sands thickenslightly to ~ 50 m of total thickness over pre-Mesozoic metamorphic

basement rock. The depth (. 1,900 m) and relative thinness of these sands

makes them less desirable than the Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I sands.

Correlations to Delaware

The Potomac Formation has been sampled extensively in updipDelaware wells (Benson 2006; Thornburg 2016). Benson (2006) traced

fairly extensive (10–15 km along strike) and continuous sands that appear

to correlate with our Unit III sands. Correlation of the sands to New Jerseyis supported by three pollen assignments to Zone III (Fig. 5); this unit is

bracketed in Delaware by sequence boundaries as it in New Jersey (Fig. 5).

Sands are concentrated in the lower part of the sequence with clays in theupper part as observed at Summit Marina and Fort Mott (Fig. 5). The

systems-tract interpretation is TSTe, as they are in New Jersey (Fig. 5). In

contrast, the sands assigned to pollen Zone II (and likely equivalent to ourPotomac Unit II) are discontinuous in Delaware (Benson 2006), as they are

discontinuous in New Jersey updip (Fig. 6) and downdip (Figs. 7, 8).

There are no deep (. 800 m) wells or coreholes in Delaware. However,a prediction of the suitability of deep sands and confining units in southern

Delaware can be based on interpolating between the four deep holes inNew Jersey (Figs. 1–3, 8) and the four deep holes in Maryland (Fig. 9).

The Waste Gate-Potomac I, Unit II, and Unit III may be present at

sufficient depths for carbon storage in the southern part of Delaware (e.g.,seaward of the 800-m contour, Fig. 1).

DISCUSSION

Tectonostratigraphy and Regional Correlations

A seesaw pattern of thickening and thinning of strata occurred from the

Late Jurassic to present, with thickening differentially shifting from the

south to the north and back (Fig. 2). The Jurassic strata and Waste GateFormation appear to follow basement, with greatest thickness in the

Salisbury Embayment and thinning on the Norfolk Arch and South JerseyHigh (Fig. 2). Both Unit I and II generally thicken to the south from New

Jersey to Maryland (Fig. 2), whereas Unit III thickens toward Cape May

(Fig. 10). This pattern continues, with the overlying Raritan and Bass Riverformations (Zone IV; Fig. 2) thickening to the north and the overlying

Magothy Formation thickening dramatically to Long Island (Fig. 2; see

Perry et al. 1975; Brown et al. 1972). The rest of the Upper Cretaceous andPaleogene strata thicken north of Delaware, whereas the Miocene and

younger thicken toward Maryland. This seesaw pattern has perplexed

geologists for decades (Brown et al. 1972) and has been dubbed ‘‘rolling

basins’’ (Owens et al. 1997). Though the changes may be partly due to

sediment sources, such variations cannot explain large changes in

accommodation. A likely mechanism explaining this pattern is changes

in mantle dynamic topography (Moucha et al. 2008; Rowley et al. 2013).

Our analysis of updip sections, particularly those with continuous cores

(Figs. 5, 6), inform our predictions for the stratigraphic continuity and

paleoenvironmental interpretation for downdip sites where continuous

cores are lacking. Updip, our studies show that the Unit III sand zones are

laterally continuous, although individual sand beds may not be (Figs. 5, 6);

similar continuity downdip leads us to suggest that these are laterally

continuous sand zones deposited on a delta front (Figs. 7, 8, 10). The

discontinuous sands of Unit II were deposited in anastomosing-river

environments updip, as indicated by ground truth at Fort Mott, Medford,

and Summit Marina (Fig. 5); they appear to be similar downdip. Finally,

the blocky sands of Unit I updip also appear to be primarily braided

deposits, as indicated by ground truth at Medford, where cores indicate

braided deposits are associated with blocky sands.

Estimates of Potential Carbon-Storage Volume

Many studies have provided qualitative estimates (e.g., high/low) of

porosity and permeability for the Potomac and, to a lesser extent, the Waste

Gate Formation (e.g., Brown et al. 1972; Leahy and Martin 1993; Zapecza

1989) based on logs (mostly SP-Resistivity kick outs; summary of

Hovorka et al. 2000). Quantitative porosity estimates were taken from

previous hydrostratigraphic studies of the Waste Gate Formation in

Maryland using graphical methods applied to the resistivity logs (Hansen

and Doyle 1982). At the Hammond well, Waste Gate Formation sands–

sandstones have porosities of 23–27%; at the Ocean City and Bethards

wells, porosities were slightly lower (19–24%). We used a conservative

porosity of 20% in our calculations for the Waste Gate-Potomac I reservoir.

Permeabilities of the Waste Gate Formation were estimated based on

pumping tests at the Crisfield well, where they ranged from 75 to 118 mD

(Hansen and Doyle 1982). Though these baseline studies demonstrate good

porosities and permeabilities, further studies of porosities on core material

and permeabilities from laboratory and pumping tests are warranted.

We calculated the storage capacity of the Waste Gate-Potomac I target

unit using the Capacity Calculator (Wickstrom et al. 2005), following

procedures recommended by National Energy Technology Laboratory

(DOE/NETL 2010). Following Wickstrom et al. (2005), the Capacity

Calculator gives:

GCO2 ¼ AtHg/tqCO2resEsaline ð1Þ

Where GCO2 is the mass of CO2 storage resource, qCO2res is the density of

CO2 under reservoir conditions, / is formation total porosity, At is the total

area of the formation, and Hg is the gross thickness of the prospective

formation. Esaline is the storage efficiency factor which represents the

percentage of the total formation fluid that will actually be displaced by

CO2. The calculation of qCO2res requires the mean reservoir temperature

and pressure, both a function of reservoir depth. The parameters and results

are shown in Table 3. We considered the low (1%), intermediate (2.5%),

and high (4%) values for Esaline reported in Appendix 1 of the Carbon

Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada (DOE/NETL 2010).

These values reflect the wide range of combinations of formation

characteristics and their statistical distributions.

We estimate the storage capacity of the Waste Gate-Potomac I sand

package with the following constraints. We estimated the mean thickness

of each unit and multiplied it by the unit’s areal extent to estimate volumes.

The mean reservoir depths are ~ 1500 m (Figs. 8, 10; Tables 1, 2). This

depth is used to determine the mean temperature, based on the reading at

1950 m depth (50.58C) at the AD#1 site, giving a temperature of 408C at

1500 m. This is consistent with the 238C/km geothermal gradient at the


Crisfield well (Hansen and Doyle 1982). Reservoir hydrostatic pressure is

calculated from the pressure–depth relation of Schlumberger (2017); at

1500 m depth, it is roughly 13.8 Mpa. At this pressure, CO2 is at its

maximum density of 705 kg/m3 and does not respond to further pressure

increases. Finally, an effective porosity value of 20% is assumed as

discussed above.

The resulting estimates for the storage potential of the Waste Gate-

Potomac I target unit are 8.4, 21.0, and 33.5 Gt CO2 for the three

displacement values of 1, 2.5, and 4%, respectively (Table 3). We apportion

this by area (Table 4) to the states of New Jersey (1.1, 2.9, and 4.6 Gt,

respectively) and Maryland (2.5, 6.2, and 9.9 Gt, respectively). We note

that estimates in these states are constrained by four deep wells in each

state. Estimates for Delaware (1.5, 3.8, and 6.1 Gt) are unconstrained by

data except by interpolation between New Jersey and Maryland, and

Virginia (3.2, 8.1, and 12.9 Gt, respectively) is constrained by only one

deep hole (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, despite uncertainties in porosity and areal

distributions in Delaware and Virginia, it appears likely that the Waste

Gate-Potomac I reservoirs may contain relatively high storage volumes for

potential carbon storage.

Our volume estimates provide firmer constraints than previously

available for storage in the Waste Gate-Potomac I target unit. Hovorka et

al. (2000) reported on similar thickness of Waste Sands and Potomac sands

that they lumped as Potomac Group, but they did not provide volume

estimates. Volume estimates for this region done as part of a U.S.

assessment (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage

Resources Assessment Team 2013) were lower (14 Gt) in part because of

regional screening criteria; they also noted concerns with confinement

(W.H. Craddock, written communication 2017). As noted above, we echo

concerns about the updip confinement in Maryland, though the

confinement in New Jersey appears more certain. Also, although our

studies use the DOE/NETL method for volume estimates, recent studies

have examined the complexities of storage in detail, and future work

should include modeling efforts incorporating evaluation of the role of

pressure and time effects on storage efficiency of brine reservoirs (Bachu

2015).

Carbon-Storage Potential in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain

Our analysis indicates that there is potential for storage of large volumes

of CO2 (8.4 to 33.5 Gt CO2) in the Waste Gate-Potomac I in the subsurface

of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. The large volume potentially could

provide sufficient storage space for multiple CO2 point sources (power

plants). For example, a 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant generates ~ 3

billion kWh/yr of electricity and emits ~ 3 Mt CO2/yr (Koomey et al.

2010). Assuming a CO2 capture rate of 90%, approximately 100 Mt of

CO2 storage would be stored over the estimated 40-year lifespan of a 500

MW coal-CCS power plant. Substituting natural gas for coal would reduce

the storage requirement to about 55 Mt CO2 storage, while substituting

agricultural byproducts would increase the storage requirement to about

120 Mt CO2 storage (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014). Thus,

the Waste Gate-Potomac I reservoir unit appears adequate to store CO2

captured from 24–95 GW of natural gas generation for a century, or

equivalently, to store an amount of CO2 equal to 0.6–2.4 years of current

U.S. emissions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2014). Detailed

studies are needed to confirm the porosity estimates used here, previously

reported permeability estimates, and to test the ability to store large

volumes of CO2.

Any location for carbon storage should ideally be located near large CO2

point sources. We mapped point sources for CO2 using data extracted from

the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) FLIGHT Tool (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). There are currently only two

intermediate-size point sources that are sufficiently downdip of the line of

supercritical storage, emitting between 0.1 and 1 Mt CO2/yr: the BL

England power plant in Beesley Point, New Jersey, and the Indian River

power plant in Millsboro, Delaware (Fig. 11; Table 5). Both are power

plants using old coal-fired or oil boilers. These plants could potentially be

replaced with newer facilities using the Waste Gate-Potomac I sands for

CO2 storage. Millsboro, Delaware (Fig. 1) is along strike of the Hammond

well (Fig. 10), where the Waste Gate-Potomac I sands are 427 m thick (Fig.

10) and would require no significant lateral piping of captured gas. The BL

England site (Fig. 1) projects along strike to a position between the AD#1

and Dorothy/Ragovin wells (Fig. 7), with a projected Waste Gate-Potomac

Unit I sand thickness of 350–400 m. While construction of new coal

plants, with or without CCS, remains unlikely, natural gas with carbon

capture and storage could be part of the solution as New Jersey seeks low-

carbon replacements for the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, scheduled to close

in 2019 (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2010).

The CO2 storage resource assessment of the Waste Gate-Potomac I

reservoir unit presented in this paper is a broad, initial estimate based on

limited, average borehole and well data. Detailed geologic and hydraulic

studies are needed to better constrain porosity, sand volumes, and reservoir

pressures and temperatures, as well as permeability, sand connectivity, and

the competency of confining units and their efficacy as seals. As we have

show here, the geological potential exists for carbon storage in the Mid-

Atlantic Coastal Plain, and geologic and engineering studies are needed to

further test the suitability of the Potomac-Waste Gate reservoirs for carbon

storage. Stratigraphic test coreholes in Maryland (e.g., Ocean City) and,

especially, New Jersey (e.g., Beesley Point) and Delaware (e.g., Millsboro)

given their proximity to existing CO2 point sources, could provide valuable

geological and engineering information. It would also yield a wealth of

geological information on the tectonics, sea level, and Earth history of the

region (e.g., Miller et al. 2005) from its most expanded sections.

TABLE 3.—Volume estimates for the combined Waste Gate-Potomac I in the Mid-Atlantic region for area seaward of red 800 m contour using the

assumption of effective porosity value of 20% (Fig. 1).

Reservoir Depth (m)

Reservoir

Temperature (8F)

Reservoir PressureReservoir

Thickness (m)

Reservoir

Area (sqkm)

CO2 Mass Storage Capacity (Gt)

psi entered in calculator displace 1% displace 2.5% displace 4%

1524 100 2000 1600 213 6795388 8.4 21 33.5

TABLE 4.—Volume estimates apportioned by state for area seaward of red

800 m basement contour (Fig. 1).

State

Reservoir

Area (sqkm)

CO2 Mass Storage Capacity (billion ton, Gt)

displace 1% displace 2.5% displace 4%

NJ 3750 1.1 2.9 4.6

DE 5000 1.5 3.8 6.1

MD 8125 2.5 6.2 9.9

VA 10625 3.2 8.1 12.9

Total 27500 8.4 21 33.5


FIG. 11.—Map of point sources of CO2 from

data extracted from the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) FLIGHT Tool (http://ghgdata.

epa.gov/ghgp). The data are reported to EPA by

facilities as of 08/16/2015. All emissions data are

presented in units of metric tons of CO2. Red line

is the 800-m structural contour; supercritical

carbon sequestration in coastal-plain strata is

possible only seaward of this contour.

TABLE 5.—CO2 point sources seaward of the 800 m basement contour (Fig. 1).

Operator Plant Type

2014 CO2 Emissions

(Metric Tons CO2)

Vienna Petroleum liquids 20800

Indian River Petroleum liquids Conventional steam coal 797333

McKee Run Natural gas 22787

Van Sant Natural gas 1614

NRG Energy Center Dover Natural gas 104553

Middle Energy Center Natural gas 2445

Cumberland Energy Center Natural gas 62629

B L England Coal Natural gas 250366

Marina Thermal Facility Natural gas 45146

Inlet District Energy Center Natural gas 31170

Mid-Town Thermal Center Data not available 47596

Sherman Avenue Natural gas 21637

Howard M Down Natural gas 39281

West Station Petroleum liquids 2701

Cedar Energy Station Natural gas 4945

Forked River Natural gas 5323


CONCLUSIONS

Sequence stratigraphy integrated with lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy,

and paleoenvironmental reconstructions can be used to better predict the

continuity of potential CO2 storage targets and confining (clay–shale)

units. We evaluate the Lower Cretaceous Waste Gate Formation and mid-

Cretaceous Potomac Formation/Group in New Jersey and Maryland, which

we divide into three major reservoirs (Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I, Potomac

Unit II, and Potomac Unit III) based on regional log correlations, sequence

stratigraphic stacking patterns, and pollen biostratigraphy. Our assessment

indicates that sand zones in the lower Potomac Unit III sequence are

laterally continuous across long distances (. 60 km), though individual

sands may be local in extent. Cenomanian Potomac Unit III sands are

suitable for storage in the lower part of Cape May County, New Jersey,

though near the updip limit for supercritical storage (800 m). Also, even if

carbon is injected into these strata, the updip migration above the depth of

supercritical storage may occur. The Potomac Unit III sands thin into

Maryland, where they are less suitable for carbon storage. Potomac Unit II

sands (Albian pollen Zone II) are generally thin and discontinuous across

the region. Waste Gate-Potomac Unit I sands are thick in Maryland and

New Jersey and confined in New Jersey; the confinement updip in

Maryland is uncertain. Like Unit III, the Waste Gate-Unit I sand zones

appear similar at widely spaced wells, suggesting correlatable sand zones,

though individual sand beds may be laterally discontinuous. Potentially,

large volumes of CO2 (~ 8–34 Gt) could be stored in the Waste Gate-

Potomac I reservoir; however, more information is needed to refine the

geologic structure (sand connectivity, storage volumes, and confining-unit

competency) and hydraulic characteristics (porosity, permeability, and

pressures).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental files, Tables 1 and 2 and Figure 1, are available from JSR’s

Data Archive: http://sepm.org/pages.aspx?pageid¼229.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by Department of Energy under Award Numbers

DE-FE0026087 (Mid-Atlantic U.S. Offshore Carbon Storage Resource

Assessment Project) and DE-FC26-0NT42589 (Midwest Regional Carbon

Sequestration Partnership Program) through Battelle to Rutgers and the

Maryland Geological Survey. We thank C. Walsh for helping develop the

Maryland correlations with support from the Rutgers Energy Institute. We thank

P. McLaughlin (Delaware Geological Survey), and S. Hubbard, W. Craddock,

and B. Romans for comments on the manuscript. P. McLaughlin contributed to

the updating of Figure 4 and information on Potomac Formation. We thank D.

Schrag, C. Hlavaty, D. Goldberg, B. Slater, and J. Friedmann for discussions of

carbon storage and P. Falkowski for his encouragement of our carbon-storage

studies.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of

the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any

agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process

disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the

United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of

authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United

States Government or any agency thereof.

REFERENCES

ANDREASEN, D.C., 1999, The geohydrology and water-supply potential of the lowerPatapsco aquifer and Patuxent aquifers in the Indian Head-Bryans Road area, CharlesCounty, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 69, 119 p.[http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_69.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

ANDREASEN, D.C., 2007, Optimization of ground-water withdrawals in Anne ArundelCounty, Maryland, from the Upper Patapsco, Lower Patapsco, and Patuxent aquifersprojected through 2044: Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 77,107 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_77.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

ANDREASEN, D.C., STALEY, A.W., AND ACHMAD, G., 2013, Maryland coastal plain aquiferinformation system: hydrogeologic framework: Maryland Department of NaturalResources, Open-File Report, no. 12-02-20, 121 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/OFR_12-02-20.html, accessed 3/20/2017].

ACHMAD, G., AND HANSEN, H.J., 2001, Ground-water levels and pumpage trends in themajor Coastal Plain aquifers of Southern Maryland between 1970 and 1996: MarylandGeological Survey, Open-File Report, no. 2000-02-12, 150 p.

ATCHLEY, S.C., NORDT, L.C., AND DWORKIN, S.I., 2004, Eustatic control on alluvial sequencestratigraphy: a possible example from the Cretaceous–Tertiary transition of the TornilloBasin, Big Bend National Park, West Texas, USA: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.74, p. 391–404.

ATCHLEY, S.C., NORDT, L.C., DWORKIN, S.I., CLEVELAND, D.M., MINTZ, J.S., AND HARLOW, H.,2013, Alluvial stacking pattern analysis and sequence stratigraphy: concepts and casestudies, in Driese, S.M., Nordt, L.C., and McCarthy, P.J., eds., New Frontiers inPaleopedology and Terrestrial Paleoclimatology: SEPM, Special Publication 104, p.109–130.

BACHU, S., 2000, Sequestration of carbon dioxide in geological media: criteria andapproach for site selection: Energy Conservation and Management, v. 41, p. 953–970.

BACHU, S., 2015, Review of CO2 storage efficiency in deep saline aquifers: InternationalJournal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 40, p. 188–202.

BACK, W., 1966, Hydrogeochemical Facies and Groundwater Flow Patterns in NorthernPart of Atlantic Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 498A, 42 p.

BENSON, R.N., 1984, Structure contour map of pre-Mesozoic basement, landward margin ofBaltimore Canyon Trough: Delaware Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map, Series 2,scale 1:500,000.

BENSON, R.N., 2006, Internal stratigraphic correlation of the subsurface PotomacFormation, New Castle County, Delaware, and adjacent areas in Maryland and NewJersey: Delaware Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 71, 15 p.

BRENNER, G.J., 1963, Spores and Pollen of the Potomac Group of Maryland: MarylandDepartment of Geology, Mines and Water Resources, Bulletin 27, 215 p.

BROECKER, W., 2013, Does air capture constitute a viable backstop against a bad CO2 trip?:Elementa, Science of the Anthropocene, v. 1, p. 000009.

BROWN, P.M., MILLER, J.A., AND SWAIN, F.M., 1972, Structural and stratigraphic framework,and spatial distribution of permeability of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, North Carolina toNew York: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 796, 79 p.

BROWNING, J.V., MILLER, K.G., SUGARMAN, P.J., KOMINZ, M.A., MCLAUGHLIN, P.P., AND

KULPECZ, A.A., 2008, 100 Myr record of sequences, sedimentary facies and sea-levelchange from Ocean Drilling Program onshore coreholes, U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal plain:Basin Research, v. 20, p. 227–248.

CLARK, W.B., AND BIBBINS, A., 1897, The stratigraphy of the Potomac Group in Maryland:Journal of Geology, v. 5, p. 479–506.

DOE/NETL, 2010, Carbon sequestration atlas of the United States and Canada, [https://www.netl.doe.gov/KMD/CDs/atlasIII/2010atlasIII.pdf, accessed 12/9/2016].

DOYLE, J.A., AND ROBBINS, E.I., 1977, Angiosperm pollen zonation of the continentalCretaceous of the Atlantic Coastal Plain and its application to deep wells in the SalisburyEmbayment: Palynology, v. 1, p. 43–78.

DRUMMOND, D.D., 2007, Water-supply potential of the Coastal Plain aquifers in Calvert,Charles, and St. Mary’s Counties, Maryland, with emphasis on the Upper Patapsco andLower Patapsco aquifers: Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 76,225 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_76.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

DRUMMOND, D.D., AND BLOMQUIST, J.D., 1993, Hydrogeology, water-supply potential, andwater quality of the Coastal Plain aquifers of Harford County, Maryland: MarylandGeological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 58, 160 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_58.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

EDMONDS, J., LUCKOW, P., CALVIN, K., WISE, M., DOOLEY, J., KYLE, P., KIM, S.H., PATEL, P.,AND CLARKE, L., 2013, Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm%2 without negativeemissions from bioenergy and CO2 capture and storage?: Climatic Change, v. 118, p.29–43.

GILBERT, G.K., 1896, Age of the Potomac Formation: Science, v. 4, p. 875–877.GLASER, R.J., 1969, Petrology and origin of Potomac and Magothy (Cretaceous) sediments,

middle Atlantic Coastal Plain: Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no.11, 101 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_11.html, accessed 3/20/2017].

GRADSTEIN, F.M., OGG, J.G., SCHMITZ, M., AND OGG, G., 2012, The Geologic Time Scale2012, Two-Volume Set, v. 1–2, Oxford, U.K., Elsevier BV, 1176 p.

GROW, J.A., AND SHERIDAN, R.E., 1988, U.S. Atlantic continental margin: a typical Atlantic-type or passive continental margin, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow, J.A., eds., The Atlantic


Continental Margin: Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, p.1–7.

GUNNULFSEN, J., SEBASTIAN, B., AND SAWYER, R., 2013, A summary of potential carboncapture, use, and storage (CCUS) options for the State of Maryland: MarylandDepartment of Natural Resources, Publication 12-5162013-645, 121 p.

HABIB, D., 1977, Comparison of Lower and middle Cretaceous palynostratigraphiczonations in the western North Atlantic, in Swain, E.M., ed., StratigraphicMicropaleontology of Atlantic Basin and Borderlands: Amsterdam, Elsevier, Develop-ments in Paleontology and Stratigraphy 6, p. 341–367.

HANSEN, H.J., III, 1968, Geophysical log cross-section network of the Cretaceous sedimentsof Southern Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 7, 46p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_7.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

HANSEN, H.J., 1969, Depositional environments of subsurface Potomac Group in southernMaryland: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 53, p. 1923–1937.

HANSEN, H.J., 1972, A User’s Guide for the Artesian Aquifers of the Maryland CoastalPlain, Part Two: Aquifer Characteristics: Maryland Geological Survey, Open-File Report72-02-1, 123 p.

HANSEN, H.J., 1984, Hydrogeologic characteristics of the Waste Gate Formation, a newsubsurface unit of the Potomac Group underlying the eastern Delmarva Peninsula:Maryland Geological Survey, Information Circular 39, 22 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/IC_39.html, accessed 3/20/2017].

HANSEN, H.J., AND DOYLE, J.A., 1982, Waste Gate Formation. Part One: hydrogeologicframework and potential utilization of the brine aquifers of the Waste Gate Formation, anew unit of the Potomac Group underlying the Delmarva Peninsula; Part Two:palynology of continental Cretaceous sediments, Crisfield geothermal test well, easternMaryland: Maryland Geological Survey, Open-File Report 82-02-1, 87 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/OFR_82-02-1.html, accessed 3/20/2017].

HOCHULI, P.A., HEIMHOFER, U., AND WEISSERT, H., 2006, Timing of early angiospermradiation: recalibrating the classical succession: Geological Society of London, Journal,v. 163, p. 1–8.

HOVORKA, S.D., ROMERO, M.L., TREVINO, R.H., WARNE, A.G., AMBROSE, W.A., KNOX, P.R.,AND TREMBLAY, T.A., 2000, Technical summary: optimal geological environments forcarbon dioxide disposal in brine-bearing formations (aquifers) in the United States: TheUniversity of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared forU.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, contract no. DE-AC26-98FT40417, Digital Publication Series #00-01, 232 p.

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA), 2014, Energy Technology Perspectives: HarnessingElectricity’s Potential, OECD/IEA, Paris, [http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/energy-technology-perspectives-2014.html, accessed 3/16/2017].

KOMINZ, M.A., MILLER, K.G., AND BROWNING, J.V., 1998, Long-term and short-term globalCenozoic sea-level estimates: Geology, v. 26, p. 311–314.

KOMINZ, M.A., BROWNING, J.V., MILLER, K.G., SUGARMAN, P.J., MISINTSEVA, S., AND SCOTESE,C.R., 2008, Late Cretaceous to Miocene sea-level estimates from the New Jersey andDelaware coastal plain coreholes: an error analysis: Basin Research, v. 20, p. 211–226.

KOOMEY, J., AKBARI, H., BLUMSTEIN, C., BROWN, M., BROWN, R., CALWELL, C., CARTER, S.,CAVANAGH, R., CHANG, A., CLARIDGE, D., CRAIG, P., DIAMOND, R., ETO, J.H., FULKERSON,W., GADGIL, A., GELLER, H., GOLDEMBERG, J., GOLDMAN, C., GOLDSTEIN, D.B., GREENBERG,S., HAFEMEISTER, D., HARRIS, J., HARVEY, H., HEITZ, E., HIRST, E., HUMMEL, H., KAMMEN,D., KELLY, H., LAITNER, S., LEVINE, M., LOVINS, A., MASTERS, G., MCMAHON, J.E., MEIER,A., MESSENGER, M., MILLHONE, J., MILLS, E., NADEL, S., NORDMAN, B., PRICE, L., ROMM, J.,ROSS, M., RUFO, M., SATHAYE, J., SCHIPPER, L., SCHNEIDER, S.H., SWEENEY, J.L., VERDICT,M., VORSATZ, D., WANG, D., WEINBERG, C., WILK, R., WILSON, J., AND WORRELL, E., 2010,Defining a standard metric for electricity savings: Environmental Research Letters, v. 5,no. 014017.

KULPECZ, A.A., MILLER, K.G., SUGARMAN, P.J., AND BROWNING, J.V., 2008, Subsurfacedistribution of Upper Cretaceous sequences and facies, New Jersey Coastal Plain:Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 78, p. 112–129.

LEAHY, P.P., AND MARTIN, M., 1993, Geohydrology and simulation of ground-water flow inthe Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system: U.S. Geological Survey, ProfessionalPaper 1404-K, 81 p.

LOMBARDI, C.J., MILLER, K.G., MOUNTAIN, G.S., MONTEVERDE, D.H., AND MCLAUGHLIN, P.J.,2015, Mid-Cretaceous sequences of the New Jersey Offshore: implications for carbonsequestration: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs. v. 47, p. 795.

MAKASKE, B., 2001, Anastomosing rivers: a review of their classification, origin andsedimentary products: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 53, p. 149–196.

MARSH, O.C., 1896, The Jurassic formation on the Atlantic Coast: Science, v. 4, p. 805–816.

MCGEE, W.J., 1886, Geologic formations underlying Washington and vicinity: Report ofthe Health Officer of the District of Columbia for the year ending June 30, 1885, by Dr.S. Townsend, p. 19–21, 23–35.

METZ, B., DAVIDSON, O., DE CONINCK, H., LOOS, M., AND MEYER, L., 2005, IPCC SpecialReport on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: New York, Cambridge University Press,443 p.

MILLER, K.G., AND SNYDER, S.W., eds., 1997, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program,Scientific Results, v. 150X, College Station, Texas, 388 p.

MILLER, K.G., 2002, The role of ODP in understanding the causes and effects of global sea-level change: JOIDES Journal, v. 28, p. 23–28.

MILLER, K.G., SUGARMAN, P.J., BROWNING, J.V., KOMINZ, M.A., OLSSON, R.K., FEIGENSON,M.D., AND HERNANDEZ, J.C., 2004, Upper Cretaceous sequences and sea-level history,New Jersey coastal plain: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 116, p. 368–393.

MILLER, K.G., KOMINZ, M.A., BROWNING, J.V., WRIGHT, J.D., MOUNTAIN, G.S., KATZ, M.E.,SUGARMAN, P.J., CRAMER, B.S., CHRISTIE-BLICK, N., AND PEKAR, S.F., 2005, ThePhanerozoic record of global sea-level change: Science, v. 310, p. 1293–1298.

MILLER, K.G., BROWNING, J.V., MOUNTAIN, G.S., BASSETTI, M.A., MONTEVERDE, D., KATZ,M.E., INWOOD, J., LOFI, J., AND PROUST, J.-N., 2013, Sequence boundaries are impedancecontrasts: core-seismic-log integration of Oligocene–Miocene sequences, New Jerseyshallow shelf: Geosphere, v. 9, p. 1257–1285.

MITCHUM, R.M., JR., VAIL, P.R., AND THOMPSON, S., III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy andglobal changes of sea level, Part 2, The depositional sequence as a basic unit forstratigraphic analysis, in Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic stratigraphy: applications tohydrocarbon exploration: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 26,p. 53–62.

MONTEVERDE, D.H., SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., BROWNING, J.V., MOUNTAIN, G.S.,REINFELDER, Y., ROMERO, P., AND SEKER, Z., 2011, Characterization of the carbon dioxidestorage potential beneath the continental shelf and slope offshore New Jersey, in NewJersey Geological Survey, Preliminary Characterization of CO2 Sequestration Potential

in New Jersey and the Offshore Coastal Region: Midwest Regional Carbon SequestrationPartnership, Final Report, 98 p. [https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/5b322158/files/uploaded/njgs_carbon_sequestration_report_web.pdf, accessed 10/31/2016].

MOUCHA, R., FORTE, A.M., MITROVICA, J.X., ROWLEY, D.B., QUERE, S., SIMMONS, N.A., AND

GRAND, S.P., 2008, Dynamic topography and long-term sea-level variations: There is nosuch thing as a stable continental platform: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 271,p. 101–108.

MULLER, R.D., SDROLIAS, M., GAINA, C., STEINBERGER, B., AND HEINE, C., 2008, Long-termsea-level fluctuations driven by ocean basin dynamics: Science, v. 319, p. 1357–1362.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 2010, Administrative ConsentOrder in the matter of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Oyster Creek GeneratingStation [http://www.state.nj.us/dep/barnegatbay/docs/aco_oyster.creek.pdf, accessed 3/26/2017].

OLSEN, P.E., AND KENT, D.V., 1999, Long-period Milankovitch cycles from the Late Triassicand Early Jurassic of eastern North America and their implications for the calibration ofthe early Mesozoic time-scale and the long-term behavior of the planets: Royal Societyof London, Philosophical Transactions, Series A, v. 357, p. 1761–1786.

OLSSON, R.K., GIBSON, T.G., HANSEN, H.J., AND OWENS, J.P., 1988, Geology of the northernAtlantic Coastal Plain: Long Island to Virginia, in Sheridan, R.E., and Grow, J.A., eds.,The Atlantic Coastal Margin, U.S.: Geological Society of America, Geology of NorthAmerica v. I-2, p. 87–105.

OTTON, E.G., AND MANDLE, R.J., 1984, Hydrogeology of the upper Chesapeake Bay area,Maryland, with emphasis on aquifers in the Potomac Group: Maryland GeologicalSurvey Report of Investigations 39, 62 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/RI_39.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

OWENS, J.P., 1969, Coastal Plain rocks of Harford County, in The Geology of HarfordCounty, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey, p. 77–103.

OWENS, J.P., AND GOHN, G.S., 1985, Depositional history of the Cretaceous series in the U.S.Atlantic coastal plain: stratigraphy, paleoenvironments, and tectonic controls ofsedimentation, in Poag, C.W., ed., Geologic Evolution of the United States AtlanticMargin: New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 25–86.

OWENS, J.P., MILLER, K.G., AND SUGARMAN, P.J., 1997, Lithostratigraphy and paleoenviron-ments of the Island Beach borehole, New Jersey coastal plain drilling project, in Miller,K.G., and Snyder, S.W., eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, ScientificResults, Volume 150X: College Station, Texas, p. 15–24.

OWENS, J.P., SUGARMAN, P.J., SOHL, N.F., PARKER, R.A., HOUGHTON, H.F., VOLKERT, R.A.,DRAKE, A.A., JR., AND ORNDORFF, R.C., 1998, Bedrock Geologic Map of Central andSouthern New Jersey, U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, MapI-2540-B, scale 1:100,000, 4 sheets.

PELTIER, W.R., 1998, Postglacial variations in the level of the sea: implications for climatedynamics and solid-Earth geophysics: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 36, p. 603–689.

PERRY, W.J., JR., MINARD, J.P., WEED, E.G.A., ROBBINS, E.I., AND RHODEHAMAL, E.C., 1975,Stratigraphy of Atlantic Coastal margin of United States north of Cape Hatteras: briefsurvey: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 59, p. 1529–1548.

POSAMENTIER, H.W., JERVEY, M.T., AND VAIL, P.R., 1988, Eustatic controls on clasticdeposition I, conceptual framework, in Wilgus, C.K., Hastings, B.K., Posamentier, H.,Van Wagoner, J., Ross, C.A., and Kendall, C.G.St.C., eds., Sea Level Changes: AnIntegrated Approach: SEPM, Special Publication 42, p. 109–124.

RAMSEY, K.W., 2005, Geologic Map of New Castle County, Delaware: Delaware GeologicalSurvey, Geologic Map 13, scale 1:100,000.

ROBBINS, E.I., PERRY, W.J., JR., AND DOYLE, J.A., 1975, Palynological and stratigraphicinvestigations of four deep wells in the Salisbury Embayment of the Atlantic CoastalPlain: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 75-307, 120 p.

ROWLEY, D.B., FORTE, A.M., MOUCHA, R., MITROVICA, J.X., SIMMONS, N.A., AND GRAND, S.P.,2013, Dynamic topography change of the eastern United States since 3 million yearsago: Science, v. 340, p. 1560–1563.

SCHLUMBERGER, 2017, Hydrostatic pressure, Oilfield Glossary [http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term¼hydrostatic%20pressure, accessed 3/27/2017].


SHERIDAN, R.E., OLSSON, R.K., AND MILLER, J.J., 1991, Seismic reflection and gravity studyof proposed Taconic suture under the New Jersey Coastal Plain: implications forcontinental growth: Geological Society of America, Bulletin, v. 103, p. 402–414.

SMITH, P., DAVIS, S.J., CREUTZIG, F., FUSS, S., MINX, J., GABRIELLE, B., KATO, E., JACKSON,R.B., COWIE, A., KRIEGLER, E., VAN VUUREN, D.P., ROGELJ, J., CIAIS, P., MILNE, J.,CANADELL, J.G., MCCOLLUM, D., PETERS, G., ANDREW, R., KREY, V., SHRESTHA, G.,FRIEDLINGSTEIN, P., GASSER, T., GRUBLER, A., HEIDUG, W.K., JONAS, M., JONES, C.D.,KRAXNER, F., LITTLETON, E., LOWE, J., MOREIRA, J.R., NAKICENOVIC, N., OBERSTEINER, M.,PATWARDHAN, A., ROGNER, M., RUBIN, E., SHARIFI, A., TORVANGER, A., YAMAGATA, Y.,EDMONDS, J., AND YONGSUNG, C., 2016, Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2

emissions: Nature Climate Change, v. 6, p. 42–50.SOEDER, D.J., RAFFENSPERGER, J.P., AND NARDI, M.R., 2007, Effects of withdrawals on

ground-water levels in Southern Maryland and the adjacent Eastern Shore, 1980–2005:U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5249, 82 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5249/, accessed 9/2/2016].

SPASOJEVIC, S., LIU, L., GURNIS, M., AND MULLER, R.D., 2008, The case for dynamicsubsidence of the United States East Coast since the Eocene: Geophysical ResearchLetters, v. 35, no. L08305, doi:10.1029/2008GL033511.

STALEY, A.W., 2015, Hydrogeology of the Patuxent aquifer system in the Waldorf area,Charles County, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey, Open-File Report 15-02-01, 73p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/OFR_15-02-01.html, accessed 9/2/2016].

STALEY, A.W., ANDREASEN, D.C., AND CURTIN, S.E., 2016, Potentiometric surface and water-level difference maps of selected confined aquifers in Southern Maryland andMaryland’s Eastern Shore, 1975–2015: Maryland Geological Survey, Open-File Report16-02-02, 30 p. [http://www.mgs.md.gov/publications/report_pages/OFR_16-02-02.html, accessed 3/20/2017].

SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., BUKRY, D., AND FEIGENSON, M.D., 1995, UppermostCampanian–Maestrichtian strontium isotopic, biostratigraphic, and sequence stratigraph-ic framework of the New Jersey Coastal Plain: Geological Society of America, Bulletin,v. 107, p. 19–37.

SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., MCLAUGHLIN, P.P., JR., BROWNING, J.V., HERNANDEZ, J.,MONTEVERDE, D., UPTEGROVE, J., BAXTER, S.J., MCKENNA, T.E., ANDRES, A.S., BENSON,R.N., RAMSEY, K.W., KEYSER, T., KATZ, M.E., KAHN, A., FRIEDMAN, A., WOJTKO, M.,FEIGENSON, M.D., OLSSON, R.K., BRENNER, G., SELF-TRAIL, J.M., AND COBBS, G., III, 2004,Fort Mott Site, in Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., et al. eds., Proceedings ofthe Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, Volume 174AX (Suppl.): College Station,Texas, p. 1–50.

SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., BROWNING, J.V., KULPECZ, A.A., MCLAUGHLIN, P.P., AND

MONTEVERDE, D.H., 2005a, Hydrostratigraphy of the New Jersey coastal plain: sequencesand facies predict continuity of aquifers and confining units: Stratigraphy, v. 2, p. 259–275.

SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., BROWNING, J.V., MCLAUGHLIN, P.P., JR., BRENNER, G.J.,BUTTARI, B., CRAMER, B.S., HARRIS, A., HERNANDEZ, J., KATZ, M.E., LETTINI, B.,MISINTSEVA, S., MONTEVERDE, D.H., OLSSON, R.K., PATRICK, L., ROMAN, E., WOJTKO, M.J.,AUBRY, M.-P., FEIGENSON, M.D., BARRON, J.A., CURTIN, S., COBBS, G., COBBS, G., III,BUKRY, D., AND HUFFMAN, B., 2005b, Millville Site, in Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J.,Browning, J.V., et al. eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, v.174AX (supplement): College Station, Texas, p. 1–94.

SUGARMAN, P.J., MILLER, K.G., BROWNING, J.V., AUBRY, M.-P., BRENNER, G.J., BUKRY, D.,BUTARI, B., FEIGENSON, M.D., KULPECZ, A.A., MCLAUGHLIN, P.P., JR., MIZINTSEVA, S.,MONTEVERDE, D.H., OLSSON, R., PUSZ, A., RANCAN, H., TOMLINSON, J., UPTEGROVE, J., AND

VELEZ, C.C., 2010, Medford Site, in Miller, K.G., Sugarman, P.J., Browning, J.V., et al.eds., Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Initial Reports, v. 174AX(supplement): College Station, Texas, p. 1–93.

SUGARMAN, P.J., MONTEVERDE, D.H., PRISTAS, R., GIRARD, M., BOYLE, J., MILLER, K.G.,BROWNING, J.V., FAN REINFELDER, Y., ROMERO, P., AND KULPECZ, A., 2011, Characterization

of the carbon dioxide storage potential beneath the New Jersey Coastal Plain, in

Preliminary Characterization of CO2 Sequestration Potential in New Jersey and theOffshore Coastal Region: New Jersey Geological Survey, Midwest Regional CarbonSequestration Partnership, Final Report, 98 p. [https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/5b322158/files/uploaded/njgs_carbon_sequestration_report_web.pdf, accessed 10/31/2016].

THORNBURG, J.D., 2016, Reconstructing landscapes across the early to late Cretaceoustransition: evaluating base level, climate and sequence stratigraphy from PotomacFormation sediments in New Jersey and Delaware [Ph.D. thesis]: Rutgers University, 246p.

TRAPP, H., JR., KNOBEL, L.L., MEISLER, H., AND LEAHY, P.P., 1984, Test well DO-CE 88 atCambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply Paper2229, 48 p. [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp2229, accessed 9/2/2016].

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC CARBON DIOXIDE STORAGE RESOURCES ASSESSMENT TEAM,2013, National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources: results, version1.1, September 2013: U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1386, 41 p. (Supersedes version1.0 released June 26, 2013) [http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1386/].

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 2014, Emissions factors for Greenhouse GasInventories [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi les/2015-07/documents/emission-factors_2014.pdf, accessed 3/25/2017].

VAIL, P.R., MITCHUM, R.M., JR., AND THOMPSON, S., III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy andglobal changes of sea level, Part 4: global cycles of relative changes of sea level, in

Payton, C.E., ed., Seismic stratigraphy: applications to hydrocarbon exploration:American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 26, p. 83–89.

VAN WAGONER, J.C., MITCHUM, R.M. JR., POSAMENTIER, H.W., AND VAIL, P.R., 1987, Seismicstratigraphy interpretation using sequence stratigraphy: Part 2, Key definitions ofsequence stratigraphy, in Bally, A.W., ed., Atlas of Seismic Stratigraphy: AmericanAssociation of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 27, v. 1–3, p. 11–14.

VAN WAGONER, J.C., MITCHUM, R.M., CAMPION, K.M., AND RAHMANIAN, V.D., 1990,Siliciclastic Sequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Outcrops: Concepts forHigh-Resolution Correlation of Time and Facies: American Association of PetroleumGeologists, Methods in Exploration Series, v. 7, 55 p.

WATTS, A.B., 1981, The U.S. Atlantic continental margin: subsidence history, crustalstructure, and thermal evolution, in Bally, A.W., ed., Geology of Passive ContinentalMargins: History, Structure, and Sedimentologic Record: American Association ofPetroleum Geologists, Education Course Note Series, v. 19, p. 2–70.

WICKSTROM, L.H., VENTERIS, E.R., HARPER, J.A., MCDONALD, J., SLUCHER, E.R., CARTER,K.M., GREB, S.F., WELLS, J.G., HARRISON, W.B., III, NUTTALL, B.C., RILEY, R.A.,DRAHOVZAL, J.A., RUPP, J.A., AVARY, K.L., LAHAM, S., BARNES, D.A., GUPTA, N.,BARANOSKI, M.A., RADHAKRISHNAN, P., SOLIS, M.P., BAUM, G.R., POWERS, D., HOHN, M.E.,PARRIS, M.P., MCCOY, K., GRAMMER, G.M., POOL, S., LUCKHARDT, C.M., AND KISH, P.,2005, Characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities in the MRCSP region:Phase I task report period of performance: Ohio Geological Survey, Open-File Report2005-1, 152 p.

WITHJACK, M.O., SCHLISCHE, R.W., AND OLSEN, P.E., 1998, Diachronous rifting, drifting, andinversion on the passive margin of central eastern North America: an analog for otherpassive margins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v. 82, p. 817–835.

WOLFE, J.A., AND UPCHURCH, G.R., 1987, North American nonmarine climates andvegetation during the Late Cretaceous: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palae-oecology, v. 61, p. 33–77.

ZAPECZA, O.S., 1989, Hydrogeologic framework of the New Jersey coastal plain: U.S.Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1404-B, 49 p., 24 pls.

Received 22 November 2016; accepted 9 April 2017.


Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

LOWER TO MID-CRETACEOUS SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY AND ...

Documents